Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Captain Bobbossa]

What people seem to forget is that medal of honour has always been absolutaly shite. So why should we buy it anyway.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

The 2nd amendment huh? You'll have to explain that one to me, because I've always thought the 2nd amendment was about the right to bear arms.

haha yess at least someone caught this in the first few posts. god damn people get it RIGHT!


ot: its truly stupid all around, ea should not have given in to the pressure, and i hope the people who complained about hte game realized that all they probably did was remove the name. and thats it. so really, its not a big deal.

 

[T-Bone24]

I enjoy how you criticise the "unconstitutional", yet very american practise of "pressuring a group with no legal basis", then in the same sentence you pressurise a group with no legal basis.

It's a silly thing to boycott a game for, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, I'm not the biggest fan of shooters. You're just as bad as the people who complained about the Taliban's name being in the game.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Boycotts against games is probably the stupidest thing ever, you just deprive yourself of entertainment and don't do a damn thing against EA's bottom line, plus who do you think actually gets hurt in boycotts even if they do work? The little guy, so all your doing is fucking hardworking people because you want to cry.

The little guy? What, you mean EA?



Sorry, had to wait until I stopped laughing hysterically.

For US gamers, it's a massive (and constitutional) use of the first amendment's ability to be used in ways the OP doesn't agree with.

You're clearly not very good at mind-reading, even though you're trying to do it: I've held that the first amendment exists to protect the things we *don't* agree with, not what we do. "The tyranny of the majority" comes to mind.

Your post however, is a blatant violation of the first amendment in that you're pressuring your fellow gamers into not buying the game because of a word not present in the game. /s

...I'm sorry, what? It's almost comical how little sense that makes. I, as a consumer, am not buying a game because it's being censored by the influence of people who are predominantly nonconsumers. I'm suggesting that other consumers to do the same, lest this precedent lead to future regulation of video games.

So tell me again where I'm violating the first amendment?

Also, your post here, or any other number of forums will do little to no damage on their sales, that's a reality. A huge number of people buy games don't read gaming websites.

More hilariously faulty logic. So because I don't have a massive audience in front of me, I should never voice my opinions, or speak, for that matter? By this train of thought, not only was Rome not built in a day, it was also never built at all thanks to crippling apathy.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

They didn't break the law either way, and I don't particularly care whether they call it Taliban or Opposing Force, just like I don't care one way or another if the mosque is built at Ground Zero. I think that they have the right to built the mosque, EA has the right to name their factions whatever they want, regardless of pressure.

You're completely ignoring cause and effect. That mindset also says that a black guy has the right to move out of his house whenever he wants regardless of whether his neighbors spit on his children, or a car has a right to crash regardless of whether it has a cut brake line.

As I said before, I don't care. Was it tasteless for EA to name their opposing force the Taliban? Maybe. Was it right for people to flip out? Who knows. But they have that right, and here's the thing; EA is in this to make money, and that is all. If they have something that is deemed so offensive that the UNITED STATES ARMY is banning it, that could reduce sales. And sales are all that matters.

Ah...so the US Army is either the primary sales base for the video game industry...or they're the standard for obscenity in the same sense that the Nazis are the standard for evil.

I've already made my point repeatedly in other topics, but let me summarize it once more for you so you don't feel left out.

Already attempting to establish yourself as some sort of higher brain-form than me...good, good.

You are acting like a spoiled, entitled child, making a big deal out of something that should be a complete non-issue, something that has zero impact on the game and should have zero impact on your ability to enjoy the game.

So does blood and dismemberment in L4D2, yet that was censored in Australia. But I guess that's a non-issue, too. And Yahtzee is a big, whiny baby for not liking non-gamers censoring games.

By boycotting the game, you're sending the message that your ability to play as a team called "The Taliban" was more important to you than how good the game itself actually is. Which, it should be obvious, is ludicrous.

Except that a boycott is intended to have some degree of *sacrifice* in it. If Ford comes out with a car with a tendency to slice the driver's balls off when they brake, that's not called "boycotting," it's called "not being a retard" because no one would buy it anyway. A boycott is about not buying a product with a bigger purpose in mind.

If EA has just named the team "Terrorist" from the start, they wouldn't even have an issue, neither from me, nor from whatever do-gooders who hated the concept of Taliban in a video game. It was the forced change that mattered, not that I refuse to play a game that doesn't specify what cell of terrorists are in multiplayer.

Char, you are completely full of sh*t. The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want--so long as they do so legally--and equally guarantees your right to complain about it. What right exactly are they violating? Your right to speak freely, to assemble a group, to petition them not to do something, to publish information, or to practice your religion?

Mhm...except that they aren't marketing the game as they wanted anymore. Remember that bit about changing stuff because people entirely unrelated to EA told them to? Even though it was completely legal?

 

[The Hairminator]

Is it really that much of a deal? Who cares if they are named Talibans or not? Well, except for the people who made them remove the name.

Because ultimately this is based around the same argument that the anti-"mosque" protesters are using regarding the community center proposed to be built near Ground Zero. There is zero (0) legal statute that is preventing the action, yet groups are trying to force it to be stopped because it's "in poor taste." Even if it *were* in poor taste, there is still absolutely nothing legally barring them from doing so, and it's that sort of "Limit your first amendment rights because we're telling you to" garbage that could come back to bite the video game industry on the arse.

It has nothing to do with any amendments, though. It has to do with capitalism. EA obviously believe the game will have less sales with the word "Taliban" in it, and therefore they removed it. They may be right or wrong, but frankly I do not care, as I'm not too fond of either EA or generic FPS games, nor the Taliban's presence in video games.

I do not think that the protesting people succeeded in any other way than in simply convincing EA their sales would drop if these people didn't shut up. They removed it so that they would.

Attempting to boycott the game now, however, would be fairly useless, as the EA top would never admit their error.

 

[Jonluw]

Wasn't going to buy it in the first place, so sure; I'll boycott MOH.

 

[j0frenzy]

I'm not buying it anyway...yay boycott?

Fuck yeah! That counts, too.

Even as a person who liberally uses the phrases slippery slope and civil rights, you are seriously going to have to explain the Constitutional argument to me. No one present in this whole debacle has done anything legally wrong.

No one's done anything wrong? Then why was a game forced-in-all-but-written-law to censor itself for entirely legal content?

No one is stopping you from doing anything. I do agree that EA should not have changed the name of the opposing faction, but it is hardly a Constitutional issue.

That's the problem: the moment that the public pressures ANYONE into limiting their right to freedom of expression, it becomes a constitutional issue.

Also, based on the past couple of years of boycotts and game sales, I could probably argue the point that we are not where the millions of dollars come from.

Which ones are you thinking of, because I can probably similarly disprove your point for any of them.

The people who "forced" EA to change the name of the Taliban in Medal of Honor did not do so through the courts or through the government, they did it through boycotts and public discourse, you know, like what you are doing.
No one forced EA to do what they did. No one censored EA. They still have the ability to change it back to the Taliban if they so choose.
As far as gaming boycotts that don't work, people boycotted both Left 4 Dead 2 and Modern Warfare 2 and I'm pretty sure both are doing just fine monetarily.

 

[gl1koz3]

Downloaded it. Looked onto a rock. Shot all rounds. Uninstalled.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Since EA's already caved in to pressure from whatever hundreds or thousands that wouldn't have been buying Medal of Honor anyway, why don't we simply assert the obvious leverage that *we* have as the actual gamers?

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the first amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis, so the hell with it: don't buy Medal of Honor when it comes out.

EA seems to be forgetting that we're the ones who buy their games, and that we're the ones who ultimately decide whether or not their game will sell millions or a few thousand. So how about it? Why not take a stand here? Or at least some time before the logic if "We're currently waging war on these guys, so they can't be in our video games" inevitable expands. This is a dangerous precedent: let's stop it here.

What did they DO exactly that is so horrible that we should stop buying their games?
If this isn't about the ridiculous anti piracy crap, what could possibly be worth not buying their games?

 

[Caradinist]

Little known fact: Obama made sure the Taliban weren't on this game.

It's time to form up a rally!

 

[Soushi]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

So in other words...you're fleeing with a frantic backward sling of feces rather than trying to actually argue my point?

He's done it on my topic as well.
O.T.: It is nice to see someone else who is pissed off about this whole thing. You make some good points. Boycotting may not be the best way to get out point acorss, but if you get enough people into it, you may raise some eyebrows.

 

[Crazycat690]

Well americans shouldn't be in the game either, many germans have relatives that's been killed by them, and many arabs too, it's very disrespectful for everyone else playing as an american "hero" while you're killing your own people.

I might buy it if it's a GOOD GAME!

 

[brodie21]

i would have and still will get it if it is actually good, i dont care what the names are.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I enjoy how you criticise the "unconstitutional", yet very american practise of "pressuring a group with no legal basis", then in the same sentence you pressurise a group with no legal basis.

It's a silly thing to boycott a game for, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, I'm not the biggest fan of shooters. You're just as bad as the people who complained about the Taliban's name being in the game.

Right...so in other words, unless I buy a product that was censored by unconstitutional means, thus indirectly granting a veritable referendum to the censors, I'm as bad as the jackboots who censored it in the first place?

Oh, if only I could live in Bizarro World like you do. Then I might actually see how that makes sense.

 

[captainwolfos]

I despise modern war games because modern wars are boring, not buying it either way.

This. Seriously, I'd much rather play a war game with swords or man-sized cannons which are very liable to blow up in your face than machine guns and tanks. All modern war games are pretty much identical. Which doesn't necessarily make them all bad, just incredibly monotonous.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

What's going on here? Maay I ask the reasoning in this debate? Why would anyone suggest people not to buy a product that it's about to come? For what reason?

 

[Kiefer13]

I'm still going to get it, provided it seems good. Though I am somewhat disappointed that they backed down on the Taliban issue. But it's not just their fault. It's the fault of the idiots who were placing the pressure on them to change it in the first place. It irritates me that games are still treated so differently from other mediums. I don't see controversy (or at least, not nearly as much) when the Taliban are featured in a film. Why is it suddenly different because it's a game? It's not even as though we were playing as them in the campaign. It was just a skin for multiplayer.

The name change may be a superficial one, but it's one that shouldn't have had to be made in the first place. Everyone is still going to know who OpFor are meant to represent.

 

[fozzy360]

I fail to see why this is a constitutional argument.

EA was pressured into removing the Taliban in their game by opponents. EA then agreed to change the name of the Taliban to "Opposing Force" to appease those who whined. We thrn are unhappy, and some of us choose not to buy it. End of story.

Nobody forced EA or legally pressured them to change something they wren't happy with. EA voluntarily decided to make the change. That's not a first amendment issue. Had these gropus sued into making EA do this, then maybe it'd might be, or if the govenment somehow got involved to get that change. Since neither of these things, I can't see how this is supposed to be a "constitutional" issue. I didn't like the change either, but at least it was only done to multiplayer and not the campaign.

Eh, whatever, I'm still buying the game.

 

[Enkidu88]

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the first amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis, so the hell with it: don't buy Medal of Honor when it comes out.

Well actually no it isn't. The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech to everyone, EA was free to name them the Taliban and pundits were free to call it all sorts of filthy names because of it. And EA was free to change the name based on a perceived negative response to the game.

The first amendment only guarantees the Government can't throw you in jail for something you say. It doesn't say anything about pressuring groups with negative publicity, or people changing their minds because of it.