EA Intervention

[SamElliot'sMustache]

It does mean someone who's combative for the sake of it and refuses to concede a millimeter on anything, even when it's staring them in the face.

I don't think it does. I'd describe the latter of that that as stubborn, at best dogmatic.
However, Sir John is certainly not combative for the sake of it. He dislikes Extra Credits and Experienced Points, and thus he is expressing it. He has a legitimate reason. If this is a forum for discussion, then I don't see the problem in introducing a viewpoint contrary to the norm, nor do I see the problem with the staff being asked to occasionally defend their viewpoints. While he may be behaving abrasively, he's putting forward valid points. Describing it as trollish simply because he isn't conceding to your side of the argument is quite blinkered, in my opinion.

I personally don't really care, neither Extra Credits or Shamus Young's writing have ever interested me, but it annoys me greatly when I see arguments like this devolve into accusations of trolling.

I wouldn't have a problem with ol' Johnny boy, either, if he didn't come across as intellectually dishonest he does. Take for example, when Floyd responded to another comment by saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if the game industry gives the impression that games are only for maladjusted teens and impotent man-children, then parents might not let kids play them at all, whether they be violent, M-rated fare like GTA or E-rated Barbie games. This would hurt the industry.

Johnny responded by accusing Floyd of trying to take away parents' rights to determine what their kids are allowed to experience (again, paraphrasing). Does that response have anything to do with the point Floyd made? Not in the least, and that he wrote that suggests that either he's a barely literate witless worm who has no place taking part in an any adult discussion, or that his response was canned, as if he were coached/indoctrinated to say what he did if certain words came up. Either one wouldn't surprise me (this is the same guy who 'thought' the stimulus bill was intended to balance the budget), but either one makes him a troll, as he's not looking to engage in an actual discussion.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

"They invited people to commit "acts of lust" with (their?) booth babes, which meant they either wanted crowds of men to sexually harass the models, or they were offering the models as whores"

Seriously? I'm gonna have to call BS on this. The sin to win contest was stupid and worded in a way that was horribly unfortunate but if you read the flyer close enough you could tell that they were just trying to work the word lust into the contest, and that they just wanted photos.

Exaggerations like this make gaming sites like the Escapist look sensationalist and elitist and not much better than fox with their Bulletstorm/rape connections.

Bad form dude

I side with Shamus. Whoring doesn't necessarily mean intercourse, particularly in the context of this quote. Any providing of sexual services is by definition whoring. Even phone sex operators are whores. If they're paid to be sexually harrassed by a poorly-washed throng of teens (f'ing nasty), what else would you call it?

I'm going to ignore the fact that by your definition, anyone who has ever done ANYTHING sexy on tv is a whore, and tell you that you missed the point.

In his article Shamus says that EA intentionally tried to get people to harass the booth babes or whore them out. If you look up any of the tons of articles that show this contests flyer you can easily see that the "commit acts of lust" part was actually a poorly placed bullet point and not the actual rules of the contest, which just requires people to take pics of themselves with the booth babes.

The extra credits video was brilliant but some of the reactions to it have gone a bit over the top. It's like the escapist has been taken over by some Bizarro Jack Thompson

 

[SmileyBat]

But that's not at all what they're talking about? California hasn't even said that violent video games WON'T be sold to minors. One version of the law requires parental concent, while another states that only certain types. In otherwords, a rated M Mortal Kombat is illegal TO SELL TO CHILDREN, while a rated T would be fine. Further, I don't understand the problem with this law when the majority of gamers are 18-35 years old. It would be one thing if the law actually said "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Violent Videogames Whatsoever." but that's not what it says. It more says, "Hey, game developers, cool it."

I'm not saying I support the law. I agree that it's quite silly when nothing in a game is reallyh worse than a movie, tv show, or book. The idea gamers should be treated differently is silly. But the law doesn't signal the beginning of the gaming apocalypse. If anything, we'll be like Germany. "Yes, ummm, this games ok, but could you take the blood out?"

Preferable? No. Gaming hell? Absolutely not.

These same themes have all occurred in the past and it never errs on the side of leniency. If they can limit games' free speech, I guarantee you it won't stop with this first bill. What's especially mind-numbing is that it's all completely unnecessary. On the topic of developers' responsibility, there is already a perfectly fine TSRB rating that developers have to abide by and game retailers have to abide by. If developers aren't responsible for Jr. getting GTA, and retailers aren't responsible for Jr. getting GTA, it's the parents that are responsible for Jr. getting GTA. Not hard to figure out. If the parties pushing the bill were more interested in the truth then they wouldn't go to such great lengths to ignore it.

I'm agreeing with you in spirit, but the problem is it's opening the door to get a lot worse.

 

[SmileyBat]

I'm going to ignore the fact that by your definition, anyone who has ever done ANYTHING sexy on tv is a whore, and tell you that you missed the point.

In his article Shamus says that EA intentionally tried to get people to harass the booth babes or whore them out. If you look up any of the tons of articles that show this contests flyer you can easily see that the "commit acts of lust" part was actually a poorly placed bullet point and not the actual rules of the contest, which just requires people to take pics of themselves with the booth babes.

The extra credits video was brilliant but some of the reactions to it have gone a bit over the top. It's like the escapist has been taken over by some Bizarro Jack Thompson

Well actually I'm of a mind that Shamus stated the 'whore' bit not because he believed it expressly but because that's the jumping off point that many others used to get into a huge fit. He was explaining the chain reactions that had occurred with the public. That's what I was referring to when I said 'the context of this quote'.

And hey, it's not my definition, it's the actual definition.

 

[Madman123456]

After EA has been acting like a cancerous growth to videogaming as a medium i don't really get the "leadership" argument. I don't care if that changes. I'd like EA to change into something that doesn't resemble some Captain Planet Villain. But i don't think that will happen.

I just want them gone. The only Way to do that would be to not buy EA games. Let them ramble on about sales being low and that this has to be because of the evil Pirates, so they will restrict their customers even more in further games until they eventually go away.

One might argue that there are some good People that will lose their Jobs. They will find new Jobs in a Videogame industry that has one less Company that is actively working to damage that industry.

Also, would it really be such a bad thing if a company that tries so hard to find new ways to anger their customers again and again was forced out of Business?

One might argue that Activision is waiting just around the corner. Well, they have seen now that you can punch your customers right in the face for over a decade and there will be still some People who'll defend you.

I do not like being punched in the face very much so i'd like EA to go away.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

I'm going to ignore the fact that by your definition, anyone who has ever done ANYTHING sexy on tv is a whore, and tell you that you missed the point.

In his article Shamus says that EA intentionally tried to get people to harass the booth babes or whore them out. If you look up any of the tons of articles that show this contests flyer you can easily see that the "commit acts of lust" part was actually a poorly placed bullet point and not the actual rules of the contest, which just requires people to take pics of themselves with the booth babes.

The extra credits video was brilliant but some of the reactions to it have gone a bit over the top. It's like the escapist has been taken over by some Bizarro Jack Thompson

Well actually I'm of a mind that Shamus stated the 'whore' bit not because he believed it expressly but because that's the jumping off point that many others used to get into a huge fit. He was explaining the chain reactions that had occurred with the public. That's what I was referring to when I said 'the context of this quote'.

And hey, it's not my definition, it's the actual definition.

Yeah I just looked back at the article and I can't see anywhere that he describes the quote as you have put it. From where I stand it's a completely skewed description of an event designed to paint EA in a horrible light, and anyone just hearing about the event would read it as gospel.

When it comes to EA's marketing dept we need to realize that we're not dealing with evil masterminds, we're dealing with idiots who don't understand the industry and the stigma we're trying to shake off.

We can't attack the Foxes of the world with one breath and then stoop to their level in the next. Not only is it counterproductive, it's just plain ignorant.

 

[The3rdEye]

You dont think that prolonged negative campaigning that EA is currently using wont have an adverse affect? You'd be surprised what can happen if enough people complain.

Not necessarily. People have been complaining about the supposedly harmful effects of videogames for quite some time, but overall distribution and development have emerged unscathed. While I do see merit in trying to maintain a certain quality of image and professionalism, what I don't see is legitimate and diplomatic reasoning for attacking videogames in the first place. The comparison has been made thousands of times before: Games are the new rock music, which were the new movies, which were the new books, which were... There are elements of society that just need to wail on an aspect of society, the less that's known about that aspect the easier it is for them to rationalize.

Do I think some of EA's advertising campaigns are in bad taste? You bet. Do I think it's a problem? No. People are still enjoying their ads and using their ads as prompting to buy EA games. There are plenty of companies with commercials that fall under my own perceptions of "poor taste", but as long as they sell the product they're successful and continue. EA's not stupid, if the DS2 campaign had failed to bring in scores of purchases, they would have to rethink the campaign. It sucks to have that image attached to a company you want to respect, but if they're still making money then...

 

[Outright Villainy]

I personally don't really care, neither Extra Credits or Shamus Young's writing have ever interested me, but it annoys me greatly when I see arguments like this devolve into accusations of trolling.

It's an attitude many, many people have: they can't understand that others have conflicting opinions, and so anyone disagreeing must be just trying to piss people off and nothing else.

It does my head in.

 

[Sartan0]

So what, its a stupid thing to have an advertising campaign that works?

EA's marketing team are controversial and it sells games, lots of games. It might annoy some people but its one company with the silly adverts. It'd be a problem if it was gaming as a whole that did it, but then it wouldn't be controversial then would it?

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

I do not agree. EA's campaign is not working in my opinion. I have picked up zero of the three games they used this crappy marketing / caved on. These are not 'silly' adverts. These are classless and damaging to our reputation as gamers. One company with the ability to project it's voice like EA *can* cause us problems. That is why those of us who do care should write EA and let them know they have lost business over this because they have.

 

[constantcompile]

I was going to write a big response to the EP thread, but no one would read it there. Well probably no one will read it here either, but I like Shamus better anyway.

I feel your pain. Remember to post *something* though; comment count is doubtlessly one of the ways how The Escapist measures the impact and importance of a series, and it's important to provide feedback. I will address the rest of your post point by point, not in an attempt to be uppity, but to discuss a thorough post thoroughly.

I actually feel the need to defend EA on this one. I still remember when EA was like Activision, the big behemoth sucking life out of the medium. I honestly don't look at EA like that, and Kotick's lovely shenanigans had little to do with it. A few years ago EA essentially said they would clean up their game, and compared to what they were before, they did. To use the old brand perception study, I would now buy a used car from them.

Remember that even if they aren't sucking life out of the industry, they *are* a behemoth of a publisher; I completely understand your being more forgiving of them than other more idealistic gamers, but at the same time, I'm sure you understand if those gamers want to hold such massive companies to a higher standard, and to not feel patronized by marketing that seems geared towards consumers of half their age and half their intelligence.

I'd like to look at these dreaded marketing actions item by item.

The 'sin to win' thing. Well look. There was a marketing campaign for Dante's Inferno in which each capital sin got its thing. Greed got them send an evil-looking check to publishers (while explaining that wastefulness is also a kind of greed, so cash it or not you're sinning). Anger had them sending rickrolls to Yahtzee. And so on. Of course there was going to be a Lust thing. And it happened - it was the smallest action, restricted to a single event, communicated mostly through flyers, and unlike the other things it was not forced, it was an invitation. Was it misogynist? I would say that it's a misogynist as Duke Nukem, that is, it's misogynist as a satire of itself, even if I agree that's not the only conclusion. I mean, why do the put booth babes there if they're not to have 'acts of lust' performed upon them, if you considering oogling to be one such act?

Ogling is fine, but look at your own wording - acts of lust *performed upon them*. Would you really expect the full spectrum of gamers that are interested in such a low-class marketing campaign in the first place to be, without exception, restrained and respectful in the way they go about "performing acts of lust upon the booth babes?" To further illustrate my point, let's take that action a bit out of context; what if a strip club or Hooters encouraged their customers to "perform acts of lust upon our employees?" Can you imagine the maelstrom of sexual harassment and sexual assault that would follow? I agree that *being lusted over* is part of the job description, but there's a very concrete line between being looked at and being touched, and the concern is that the vague verbiage seems to condone the latter.

The Taliban thing. I called it when it happened, and I'm amazed I seem to be the only one who caught it, so here comes the truth, please leave now if you think you can't handle it. They didn't back down, it was deliberate. They named the enemy faction 'Taliban' to try and create controversy. It worked. So when people complained, they pulled it out. What were they thinking? Well, they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted gamers to think 'Wow, look at how EDGY they are! They are using a REAL WORLD TERRORIST GROUP in their COMPLETELY REALISTIC MODERN MILITARY SHOOTER!' And they wanted nongamers to think, 'Well, that group certainly knows how to admit they screwed up. I respect them for it.' Of course, it failed on all fronts, as this kind of marketing conspiracy is wont to do, but it's not an unmitigated disaster.

In my opinion, what you stated isn't so much "the truth" as looking at it from a different perspective. But let's do that; let's assume that the marketing team knew, to an extent, what they were getting themselves into. Is it really so much to ask that a marketing team ambitious enough to handle such a hot-button topic be smart enough to predict the negative ramifications of their actions? It really sounds like you're giving them a free pass to do whatever they feel will be most profitable, even if it isn't; does that really seem like a smart approach to take? If even you are intelligent enough to see that this kind of marketing conspiracy is wont to fail on all fronts, why aren't they, especially since it's their jobs to be? Again, even if you disagree with the concern, I'm sure you can at least see why it's there; it seems to me that arguing against it is like arguing to a doctor that their patient has the right to shoot themselves in the foot - the patient *does* have that right, yes, but the doctor still has an entirely legitimate concern about this behavior.

The main problem with this is that... well, as that guy that was so brilliant a marketer that he made America love Hitler's car [http://adage.com/century/graphics/campaign_vw.jpg], nothing hurts a bad product more than good marketing.

Hey, Volkswagen makes good cars! A lot of the originals are still kicking, and with a fraction of the TLC offered to most antiques of that age! It is also generally accepted that rounded shapes are instinctively regarded as "friendlier" by human beings than angular ones, so a market for the Beetle was inevitable. But enough about that.

Even if you don't agree that these marketing actions were good, or at least not bad, we wouldn't be talking about them if Dante's Inferno and Medal of Honor had been memorable games. They'd just be the silly little premise to them. In fact, I find the main issue here is that the games just pretend to touch serious issues without actually doing so - oh god here comes a TV tropes link I can't help it I'm so sorry [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DebateAndSwitch] - and in fact I can picture in my mind clear as day when EA execs were thinking on how to make something as 'edgy' as possible yet not objectively reprehensible by straddling the line on Christianity's mythology, and then someone mentioned that most of the idea of the Christian hell was actually made up by Dante on his Commedia and isn't actually part of any major religion's canon and would be up for the taking, and the rest is a bad game. And Medal of Honor suffers from the same problem of most modern military shooters in which they deep down want to be as serious as Team Fortress 2 but can't because of their theme, so they end up with the fake dire tone of a preschool Nativity play.

Again, you seem to be very forgiving of a gaming company wanting to have its cake and eat it too, but attempting both goals through the sleaziest means possible. As I'm sure you're aware, not everyone is as content with the current state of our capitalist society as you are, where there seems to be multitudes more money and effort put into the marketing of a product than the quality of the product, especially considering that the potential of many products is squandered by not having sufficient funding for development allocated to them. I don't have the numbers, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Team Fortress 2's marketing probably had a small fraction of the budget of the marketing teams for many low-quality First Person Shooters. I also don't think it's too much of a stretch to argue that the money is better spent making a high quality game than marketing a low quality one, and that the massive amounts of money spent on marketing can be wasteful, even if that isn't always the case.

As for the Dead Space 2 ads - yeah, they're indefensable. Especially so because Dead Space is a game that revels on its seriousness. Sure, as Yahtzee mentioned in their review, they have the twisted concept of horror that a seven-year-old has after stumbling on his older brother watching Friday the 13th and wouldn't know subtle if it drove a tank through their living room and slapped them with a concrete bar, at which point they might think it was trying to subtly get their attention, but if you accept the game's viewpoint it takes itself very seriously. So there is no point that can be made by the ad other than 'Hey kid, this game sure LOOKS serious and dark, but there's plenty of mindless gore for you to enjoy as well!' Which is the admission both games somehow succesfully avoid making, that the gore and dismemberment are just for shock value and don't actually add to the horror. In sum, it wasn't an ad, it was an anti-ad. Still, to throw this fuckup in the same bin as the other slip-ups is to revel in hindisght and throw away all sense of measure.

Here's where I'm most confused - you play devil's advocate for every marketing campaign except this one, which really isn't any more difficult to defend; there are many fully-grown (if not fully matured) adults which likely delight in the idea of doing something to irritate their parents, and a few of them posted saying so in their comments on the Extra Credits video. I don't think Dead Space revels in its seriousness any more than Medal of Honor does; just because a horror game has a different atmosphere than a war game doesn't make it any less serious. Please at least attempt to look at the other games you mentioned in the same way you look at Dead Space 2; look at the subject matter of them as something to be taken very seriously, look at the marketing as immature and ineffectual, and look at the end result as a damned, damned shame. Also, bear in mind that not all players of Dead Space 2 are necessarily horrified by it [http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/137043-horror-in-video-games-theres-seeing/], so the importance of its subject matter is just as relative as Dante's Inferno or Medal of Honor; all three are games with controls to be learned and enemies to be defeated.

I considered sending EA an email informing them that I didn't buy Dead Space 2 because of its horrible ad, but that would be a lie because I wasn't going to buy it anyway. Maybe you guys should do it. If you're already boycotting Activision, it shouldn't be that hard.

I would still advise you email them asking that they look at Extra Credit's video - no lying there, right? You're just asking them to watch a video. Some people are emailing them asking them to watch, but some aren't - considering that the email will take less time and effort to make and send than this port, what have you got to lose? I don't mean to harass you, here, but again, the amount of feedback is one of the ways in which the importance of a topic is measured. Even if your individual actions don't amount to much on their own, they have the potential to make a combined action more powerful; since it's for a good cause, isn't that enough?

 

[Sartan0]

...they can't understand that others have conflicting opinions, and so anyone disagreeing must be just trying to piss people off and nothing else.

Yeah that is beyond silly. These are opinions people. That said, the way you say something can make a negative reaction more probable. Such as stating something as fact. That is also silly.

 

[lacktheknack]

'abominable and offensive marketing campaigns'

I weep for our future.

Censor them, yeah, that's a great fucking idea guys.

We cannot sink so low as to have any childish humor in our advertisements of mature games.

You are the devil if you dare decide to have fun, as an adult, in a childish way, in a commercial.

Shame on us all.

When we're busy fending off people who accuse us of selling violent content to minors, then YES. THE MARKETING WAS A VERY BAD IDEA. The LAST thing we need to give the opposition right now is ammunition over a low, patronizing gag.

Sorry all of us are bringing down video games in the struggle against whatever, but you won't make me feel bad for laughing and enjoying these ads.

"The Struggle Against Whatever" = Banning All Violent Video Games in America. That's quite the "whatever".

The sky isn't falling, even if people like to say it might.

People are getting rather wound tightly about what ifs, but to think games will be banned in the states because of 17+ content is paranoia.

Back in the 90's some stores wouldn't allow mature rated music sold... as you can see now a days, places do sell it anyway.

Again, the sky isn't falling.

You can only have so many blunders like this one before you knock the supports out. I'd rather not have any at all, immature humor be damned.

 

[constantcompile]

I personally don't really care, neither Extra Credits or Shamus Young's writing have ever interested me, but it annoys me greatly when I see arguments like this devolve into accusations of trolling.

It's an attitude many, many people have: they can't understand that others have conflicting opinions, and so anyone disagreeing must be just trying to piss people off and nothing else.

It does my head in.

For what it's worth, I just put quite a bit of effort into making my prior rebuttal to a poster's argument as respectful and mature as possible, even if I wasn't completely successful in doing so.

You seem to be focusing on the negative - try to focus on the positive. There are good posts in even the most troll-filled forums; find them, quote them so that the original poster gets a message pointing to your link, and focus only on the back-and-forth between you and them. Remember that it is *your* responsibility to make reasonable, intelligent posts; it is not the responsibility of anyone to provide them for you.

 

[Realitycrash]

Remind me, is it forbidden to speculate whether or not a suspended-post had a point? Even though it was brash and childish in language.

 

[Dogstile]

So what, its a stupid thing to have an advertising campaign that works?

EA's marketing team are controversial and it sells games, lots of games. It might annoy some people but its one company with the silly adverts. It'd be a problem if it was gaming as a whole that did it, but then it wouldn't be controversial then would it?

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

I do not agree. EA's campaign is not working in my opinion. I have picked up zero of the three games they used this crappy marketing / caved on. These are not 'silly' adverts. These are classless and damaging to our reputation as gamers. One company with the ability to project it's voice like EA *can* cause us problems. That is why those of us who do care should write EA and let them know they have lost business over this because they have.

Well good for you. However, games have never pretended to be classy until recently. In fact, gaming has always been regarded as silly, and while EA aren't trying to change that, they certainly aren't damaging it either.

 

[dragontiers]

If these kinds of articles gain momentum and more sites write up things like this, the EA will have no choice but to see just how badly they are treating everyone.

Yea and maybe pigs will learn how to fly.

You dont think that prolonged negative campaigning that EA is currently using wont have an adverse affect? You'd be surprised what can happen if enough people complain.

And you'd be surprised as to what misconceptions people have about bad press. Heck, the most samey and unimaginative games ever to exist have gotten blasted several times over for pandering to the easiest audiences, you think people care? Hell no! So long as the game can work decently enough and fulfills that one thing you're after, they couldn't care less and sales are affected sooner by the *quantity* rather than the *quality* of the press.

Not to say that if multiple gaming press stations simultaneously cried foul, then the publishers and developers still wouldn't notice. But if you think that there is that one *special* reviewer who can make all the difference...you are dead wrong. I particularly got a foul taste in my mouth when MovieBob recently harped on how his and the EC and ZP reviews 'don't let them get away with mediocrity' - NEWSFLASH! You are not that important! All they do is provide criticism that may or may not be ignored. And maybe...just maybe, if you're extremely lucky, they'll actually contribute to a general outcry of multiple critics and reviewers that will finally pierce the ivory towers of the publishers (them moreso than the developers).

What EA was trying to do essentially seems to me that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. As one poster pointed out, they have the Taliban named there long enough for the first wave of gamers to go "Fuck yeah!" but then swiftly back off when the Army comes calling, knowing that most gamers will not check the follow-up stories to the original Taliban announcement while still appearing 'reasonable' to those that opposed this move of theirs. Now...dishonest this might be in a big way and to critical appearances, this strategy is failing hard, though who knows...perhaps they have different consumer numbers that actually make them think something else. I know that what they do (as the 2nd largest publisher) ultimately affects the entire community and yes, I would truly TRULY love it if I woke up one day to see them reverting back to their original statement as read at the end of this week's EC.

I just think that this will never, EVER happen. And if it does, you can be pretty sure that critics and reviewers, no matter how incisive or worth listening to, will not be the ones to galvanize its beginning. Only the publishers and developers themselves can start that (again, publishers moreso), but frankly...the world of money is a very stale place where shining ideas are *always* given a 2nd place to the same, boring, repetitive approaches, that guarantee more money being made.

In this case EA marketing seems content to stick to pandering games not as art but as teenage chattel. Wether it is actually working for them is, I suppose, up to debate and yes - personally I would like to see them change this strategy. But the fact is that it's easier to buy out another studio and then fire the talent only so that you can claim the IPs that come with it, for example. Far easier than it is to actually bother trying to create something new or from scratch, like actually funding the training of a new studio with fresh talent for example. A shame, since EA is probably one of the few that could actually afford to take that risk - but as always, the bigger the business company is, the less likely it is to take risk for the fear that its $$$ will plummet.

And as of right now, marketing games as for hormonal teenagers is the 'tried and true' method. Wether the times have genuinely changed enough for it to not work anymore, however, only time can tell. Not us, who bang away at our keyboards in order to delude ourselves into thinking that words can actually change things. They rarely do and when delivered across the internet you can be certain that the chances drop down to a 1 in a million. But if you feel like you need to comfort your ego by thinking, that words typed or spoken across the internet actually matter that much or that a massive press barrage will in fact change the ways in which money is being made in this industry...go right ahead. Delusion is, after all, humanity's most favourite pastime I suppose.

While you do make a number of good points, one area I feel you are overlooking is the fact that everything has to start somewhere. While it is true EA likely won't listen to one critic, or even one site that tries to encourage them to change their tactics, it is a starting point to gather more momentum. After all, Penny Arcade is one of billions of webcomics on the internet, yet through them, we now have Child's Play, one of the largest video game charities, and PAX, one of the largest video game conventions. If they just said "Hey, we're only one site, our opinions/ideas can't make a difference", these things wouldn't exist. The same line of logic applies to those who refuse to vote in elections because "one vote doesn't matter". On it's own, yes, you are right, it makes no difference. However, if something like this is used as a rallying point to gather other people with like sentiments together in one group, yes things will change. It's all a matter of perspective. After all, even EA had to start with one person who wanted to make and sell video games.

 

[kouriichi]

Why are so many people bothered by what EA did?

:/ They did things different. Dont freak. Notice how through out gaming history, for shooter games, then enemys have almost always been real. Nobody freaked when Nazi's were evil. Or even the Russians. But they name a group the does exist today and people freak. Why? The taliban are generaly more evil then the russians ever where. They kill more innocents a year then gang violance.

And the Dead Space 2 add campaign? So what? Even if they were marketing to children, its not EA's job to moderate what parents buy. Theres a rating on the back that tells you who the game is for. If the parent doesnt care, or to stupid to read it ((when the rating is on BOTH the front and back)) its the parents fault.

Besides, juvenile violance has gone DOWN thanks to violance.
http://videogamevoters.org/pages/games_violence/

It doesnt matter how they market a game, because its not the child's decision to purchase it, its the parents. Sure, i hate EA just as much as the next escapist, but your making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[HappyDD]

I gotta say guys, the "Your mom will hate it" thing is not that bad, really. It's just lame, not evil. The DI fake protesters, by comparison, is an awesome idea! Whatever, they're not real protesters, but that is a marketing success in my opinion. I imagine all sorts of people went "Huh? Protesting a video game you say? Let me check that out."

Now, whether or not EA is "bad" or lacks a coherent management strategy is beyond my knowledge, but from the evidence presented I would say there is nothing compelling me to think that they have acted wrong with any of these issues. Even the censorship thing seems like the right call for a corporation even if they just say "too soon", since the Taliban conflict is ongoing.

 

[tunderball]

Didn't somebody once say about the Rollingstones 'you wouldn't want your daughter to bring a Rollingstone home with her', bad attention is the best kind of marketing.

Yes EC is a very, very good show however, everybody else please grow an opinion of your own and stop bleating all over the internet...... your making it dirty.