Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Char-Nobyl]

you mean 1st amedments, the 2nd is the right to bare arms, not freedom of speech.

And just as mine was a typo, yours implies that the second amendment allows us to wear sleeveless shirts.

I'm trying to think of which Constitutional Amendment wouldn't be fail on this.

Right to Free Assembly? Right to protection from soldiers bunking in your house?

Right to trial by jury?

Again, first amendment. It was a typo. That'll happen when surrounded by squawks about second amendment violations and, being an American who usually cares more about freedom of expression than firearms, it's a natural slip to get the two confused when it comes to importance.

 

[whitemoth]

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?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[voetballeeuw]

Well I'm not buying it either way. I'm already getting New Vegas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. I don't see the problem with having the Taliban featured in a video game. It's better than Call of Duty's Op For.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

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.

 

[freedomweasel]

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.

Some of those people complaining may buy the game now that it doesn't have that word, but that's not really the point.

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.

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

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.

Personally, I'm excited to receive my preorder.

 

[Flying-Emu]

EA was not forced to change it, they chose to change it. That's pressure, not legal requirement, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

...what? That's the exact opposite of what you seemed to be leading up to. If they'd put CP in it, then no shit they'd need to change it, because it's against all sorts of laws, and there'd be no point trying to change them all just for this. In this case, they were violating no laws whatsoever, and are making it clear that they'll cave in to whoever can put more pressure on them.

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.

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.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The game looks like an utterly generic war-shooter to me.
There are many many more of those available on the market already; why support the continued decline of variety in the market?

Bah. Like anyone would listen to that...we have "controversy" to discuss!

This "Taliban, or not" debacle was EA trying to capitalize on controversy (by one-upping Activision, no less); is anyone honestly surprised that this came back to bite them in the ass?

Personally, I wouldn't give a shit if the game lets you play as a terrorist. Then again, I don't give a shit about Medal of Honor either. I'm responding here because it's getting on my nerves, nothing more.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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.

 

[Folio]

I have money in my fist... Well, I'll just show my fist then. I'll show them reeeaaally closely.

 

[Wolfram23]

Is changing the name that big of a deal? If you were planning on getting the game, I'm quite certain it's for reasons beyond "I get to play as/against Taliban in multiplayer"

I'm still undecided if I'll get CoD or MoH. I'd rather MoH just because I don't want to support CoD #6 (I know MoH has a few too, but at least it's been a while since the last one plus it'll be neat to play in the Iraq war)... however, AFAIK all my PS3 friends are getting CoD:BO.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

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.

You have no idea about the Constitution do you?

 

[Blind Sight]

[

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?

Thing is, they weren't forced, they just did the standard video game company choice when public and political opinion are against them: bend over backwards and take it for the sake of marketing. EA made this choice on their own, there really is no legal issues involved. However, if you want to boycott Medal of Honour because of EA's lack of creative integrity and surrender to mainstream complaints (thus making it seem like if enough people complain, video game publishers will give in and change their product, basically validating those politician's complaints) then that's fine.

 

[Siege_TF]

The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want.
What right exactly are they violating?
The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want.
What right exactly are they violating?
Dental Plan.
Lisa needs braces.
Dental Plan.
Lisa needs braces.

The OP is complaining because EA caved, in spite of their right to market their games how they want. The OP however is crying wolf, because it wasn't government pressure, but corperate pressure. In his defence however, he's doing so because he can't tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote.

 

[PhiMed]

The first ammendment protects citizens from the government infringing on their right to free speech. People are allowed to ***** about something in a video game if they want to. And that's all these organizations and citizens were doing: bitching about a feature of a game. The government wasn't trying to prevent them from including this feature in the game. It was EA's decision to cave. There was no violation of the first ammendment here.

If people are allowed to say whatever they want, then citizens and organizations are also allowed to say whatever they want about what was said. It goes both ways, guy.

For what it's worth, I thought that the choice to put the Taliban in there as a playable faction was in extraordinarily bad taste, especially since it was so obviously a ploy for attention to make the game "controversial". On the other hand, removing it once you announced it is pretty lame, but I don't think it was ever there for any "artistic" purpose. It was attention-whoring, plain and simple. Don't back down from your "controversy".

For the record, your confusion between the first and second ammendments is all on you. No one else is at fault. Own your mistake. The assertion that "every other contitutional argument is made over the second amendment" is patently ridiculous. Just say, "My bad," and move on. Don't try to put your lack of knowledge of the Bill of Rights on someone else.

 

[Sicram]

I wonder, just wonder, how it would've been if an completely european company with not attachments to the US whatsoever would make a game about a current war. There wouldn't be squat people would be able to do, the only thing that might happen is that all those who took offense wouldn't buy it.

I think EA only changed the name to get more people to buy it. Also, the whatever-number-amendment should be changed from the right to bear arms to the right to learn martial arts. No wonder everyone wants a gun for protection if everyone can have a gun.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I'm not buying it, but not because I'm boycotting it, I just have absolutely no interest in it.

I'm a part of that train of thought. I would but this game but only if it featured brightly colored backgrounds and, characters. If this game engine was used to make an ultra-violent G.I. Joe FPS, I'd buy that. That wouldn't be Medal of Honor though.