EA Regrets Topless Models In Need For Speed Ad

[Andy Chalk]

EA Regrets Topless Models In Need For Speed Ad

Need For Speed: Pro Street [http://www.ea.com] release that featured topless models.

The promotion appeared on Page3.com, a site featuring topless models who appear as Ferrari [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3_girls], with EA and Need For Speed logos clearly visible. The ads have since been deleted, although a video of the photo shoot minus the game-related labeling remains available.

"We regret that these images slipped through the proper EA approval process," an EA spokesman said to GamesIndustry.biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=30998]. "They were not appropriate for our brand. The original site has been taken down this morning." A frantic and desperate search for the images was unfortunately unsuccessful.

Page Three Girls were first introduced in The Sun in 1969, and went topless in 1970. While the subject of some criticism, the long-running feature was responsible for a significant boost in sales of The Sun and remains popular with most readers. Interestingly, The Sun maintains a policy of not using models who have undergone breast augmentation surgery for its Page Three feature.


Permalink

 

[Arbre]

Topless models don't threaten the lives of people.
Illegal street races, on the other hand...

 

[hooliganyouth]

Oh for pete's sake...what a bunch of whiny whiners.

EA's not sorry that there were tits in an ad. EA's sorry that there are cry babies out there who'll complain there's a stiff breeze.

Don't you people know there's a war on?

 

[Copter400]

I make it a rule of mine to not play Need for Speed, as street racing is a stupid, stupid thing which I don't find entertaining. In fact, I don't play any racing game that doesn't let me shoot a rocket out of the front of my car.

 

[fco]

A frantic and desperate search for the images was unfortunately unsuccessful.

Obviously NSFW: el aviso [http://www.gamerah.com/noticias.php?bias=2199#nav]

 

[Zera]

another rather pointless ruse...

 

[Bongo Bill]

It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I suppose.

 

[werepossum]

I guess this means MOH: Airborne didn't make enough to get the corporate testicles out of hock?

Amazing how people feel threatened by breasts. Had a friend ask me if I'd seen Saw. She wanted to know if it had any nudity before allowing her teenager to see it. So I guess now illegal street racing can join torture and murder as things acceptable as long as they remain unsullied by breasts.

And topless models certainly threaten the lives of people if they happen to be topless adjacent to an illegal street race. LOL

 

[Andy Chalk]

Had a friend ask me if I'd seen Saw. She wanted to know if it had any nudity before allowing her teenager to see it.

Why our society is doomed, in two simple sentences.

Someone on another forum suggested this might actually be a form of viral marketing on EA's part; if they'd just pulled the ad the moment they saw it and kept their mouths shut, it's very likely nobody would have even noticed. But this "apology" nonsense went out to every gaming site on the web, and resulted in countless hordes of nerds trying to track the images down. (Good job on that, by the way.) The small ad campaign has suddenly become big news, and attracted far more attention than it ever would on the Page Three site.

 

[CarlosYenrac]

It's ok for our kids to kill people, engage in illegal street races, even vote republican!
But god forbid they should fuck.

*EDIT* My kids obviously, will never vote republican...

 

[MichaelAB]

Seems more like "Need for Shirts" from what the add looks like. What is it trying to say? "We drive so fast that it will blow clothing off?" I would not be opposed to that, mind you, I just prefer adds that either make sense or are absurd on purpose.

 

[werepossum]

*EDIT* My kids obviously, will never vote republican...

And when Hillary's nanny state takes away our shooters and racing games and allows only games where you share (or speculate in cattle futures, maybe), remember: we asked for it.

 

[werepossum]

Seems more like "Need for Shirts" from what the add looks like.

LOL. I like that, Need for Shirts. I think I'd like the adverts too.

 

[Num43]

As amusing as this is and as strange this words may be its possible EA just mawe a mistake

 

[ShadowKirby]

Hot.


But anyway, every kids saw a boob (or two!) in there life. Parents are overprotective over the wrong things. Remember people: Boobs > Murders

 

[BigText]

Had a friend ask me if I'd seen Saw. She wanted to know if it had any nudity before allowing her teenager to see it.

This is one of the biggest double-standards of today's society.

If, in a movie, a woman got chainsawed from her right shoulder to her left hip, that wouldn't be so bad. If you add cheap blood splatters and maybe see the inside of the body, organs 'n all, then it becomes a little bad. If her clothes open up due to the fact that they aren't attached to the opposite sides of the body anymore, revealing a breast or two, then it becomes Satan's incarnation in the form of a movie. The sight of the chest of a lifeless, brutally murdered woman is infinitely worse than the brutal murder of said woman.

Those weren't the best examples, as I can't imagine a director doing that unless necrophilia is more common than I thought, but you get the idea.

 

[fco]

Well, getting in their shoes, I guess it's safe to say that the chance of your son turning into a murder for watching violent movies is, though more serious, still lower than the chance of your son adopting a sexually irresponsable conduct because of all the sexual content they're exposed to.

 

[raankh]

I have a great example of this phenomena, unfortunately I've lost the link to an article so I'll have to be the source:

A television channel in the US showed a single naked breast in a show that aired around 14:30 (ie all-family time). The channel was sued by a group of angry parents outraged at this scandal.

One week later, in the same time-slot, the same channel aired a programme that began with a drive-by shooting. It wasn't very bloody or anything, the usual red-stain-on-the-shirt kind of thing. Nobody even reacted.

Ok, now, that single naked breast was part of a programme on maternity and in particular mammography.

Interestingly, the group of parents that sued are very likely to be opposed to gun control, according to the article (republican, conservative Christian district).

Sheesh ... where I live it's perfectly legal to be nude at public beaches, but it's illegal to carry so much as a knife. So this just doesn't make sense to me. Nudity doesn't necessarily mean sex, for goodness sake. Education = bad, violence = good. Whaaaaat?