Poll: So have you sent EA the email yet?

[GiantRaven]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

As are the consumers who like currently published games by EA.

There isn't anything wrong with liking the games themselves. It's just the way EA make people aware of them is completely fucking stupid and has more negative effects on the medium than positive effects.

 

[FernandoV]

It's nice to rally behind a cause but unless it affects gaming sales EA will not care. I'm sure you're all a lot less willing to NOT buy Dead Space 2. You may be willing to do something easy like emailing a letter but if you can't follow through with something that will actually get EA's attention then it's hard to be vindicated in all your outrage :\

 

[Staskala]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

Point is, why should they?
Like I said, changing the "general public's" perception about video games is a futile task that will only waste resources.
The public won't change their view on video games no matter what you do, it only takes another school shooting and you're back to square one.
How can you fault marketers for simply saying "Fuck it" and taking the easier path?

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

It is, to you as a gamer that cares about his and his medium's general perception that is.
Nothing wrong with that, but realize that not everyone shares this thought. In fact, you are a small minority.
Most of the gaming community doesn't care, or at least doesn't care enough to damage sales.

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

The economic world isn't nice enough to care about such things.
An investor wants to make money.
If company X can make the most artistic game ever but has little promise of profit, yet company Y can make a guaranteed to sell title (as generic as it may be) then who is the investor going to give that money?
Please realize that investors aren't some evil force trying to destroy the medium, they are people who take great risks and want their risks to be worth it. Losing millions of dollars to make an artistic statement isn't an option.

Please also realize that without investors the industry wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.

Are investors worth more than the medium's perception?
Obviously yes, if only for the above mentioned reason.

 

[FernandoV]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

Point is, why should they?
Like I said, changing the "general public's" perception about video games is a futile task that will only waste resources.
The public won't change their view on video games no matter what you do, it only takes another school shooting and you're back to square one.
How can you fault marketers for simply saying "Fuck it" and taking the easier path?

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

It is, to you as a gamer that cares about his and his medium's general perception that is.
Nothing wrong with that, but realize that not everyone shares this thought. In fact, you are a small minority.
Most of the gaming community doesn't care, or at least doesn't care enough to damage sales.

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

The economic world isn't nice enough to care about such things.
An investor wants to make money.
If company X can make the most artistic game ever but has little promise of profit, yet company Y can make a guaranteed to sell title (as generic as it may be) then who is the investor going to give that money?
Please realize that investors aren't some evil force trying to destroy the medium, they are people who take great risks and want their risks to be worth it. Losing millions of dollars to make an artistic statement isn't an option.

Please also realize that without investors the industry wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.

Are investors worth more than the medium's perception?
Obviously yes, if only for the above mentioned reason.

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Do you like the common perception that the average gamer is an immature adolescent manchild? If you do, then sure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with how EA market their games, since that is the perception of gamers that they are putting out there.

I honestly could not care about "common perception of gamers". I'm not a gamer. I'm a person with a multitude of interests, games among them. If anyone has an issue with how they market, then I advise you not to buy their games. That's how you bring about change, not posting preachy little internet videos.

 

[Staskala]

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

Please define your idea of "progress".

Why would progress and EA's strategy be mutually exclusive?
You need to cater to the "lowest common denominator" first if you want to get anywhere.
Even within Hollywood the general idea is "Make generic blockbusters to raise the funds and reputation to make the movies you actually want to".

Just see "generic shit" as a neccessary evil to get anywhere rather than something that hurts the industry (by making it grow appareantly).

 

[GiantRaven]

That's funny, because if some religious extremists go and blow stuff up, people will be quick to jump to the defense of said religion and note that it was the extremists', the peoples' fault. The religion had nothing to do with it, no siree.

Interesting. Could you point out where, exactly, I said any of that?

But when someone wants to make fun of extremists, then sure enough they're insulting the ENTIRE FUCKING RELIGION.

All I know is that, if I were a Christian, I would be incredibly offended to see my religion being used in a negative manner as a publicity stunt in order to sell videogames. Is it even making fun of extremists? Is that what the world has come to; a bunch of people with signs, protesting against something, is extremism?

I honestly could not care about "common perception of gamers". I'm not a gamer. I'm a person with a multitude of interests, games among them. If anyone has an issue with how they market, then I advise you not to buy their games. That's how you bring about change, not posting preachy little internet videos.

I didn't buy any of the games. Go me! I made a difference! Oh, wait...

Also, I'm hardly a 'gamer' myself (I wish I hadn't used such a term really, it's so stupid) but I would prefer one of the biggest companies within the industry not play up the stereotypes of it's customers.

 

[FernandoV]

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

Please define your idea of "progress".

Why would progress and EA's strategy be mutually exclusive?
You need to cater to the "lowest common denominator" first if you want to get anywhere.
Even within Hollywood the general idea is "Make generic blockbusters to raise the funds and reputation to make the movies you actually want to".

Just see "generic shit" as a neccessary evil to get anywhere rather than something that hurts the industry (by making it grow appareantly).

That's not what I said at all. It just seems like you're trying to snuff out people's idealism about the future of gaming when as a community people should hope for the evolution of the industry.

 

[GiantRaven]

YOU didn't say that. But are you seriously disputing it? Are you one of those people who blames the entire islamic religion for 9/11?

Of course not, the very idea is ridiculous.

1. Is your idea of a moderate Christian someone who picks up signs and starts protesting video games in the street?

Not a 'moderate Christian' as such. But I don't think the act of non-violent protest against something you disagree with can be called an act of extremism.

And I don't see how staging a mock protest at the expense of a group (religious or not) couldn't be seen as offensive to that group. It puts them in a poor light, when really it wasn't anything to do with them in the slightest.

2. The Westboro Baptist Church. People with signs, protesting against something. I guess i don't know whether to call them extremist or not, but they're pretty extreme to me.

To be honest, I'm not overly familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church. Are they the people that picketed Heath Ledger's funeral because of Brokeback Mountain? I don't know if I'd call them extremists (that always seemed like a violent idea to me) but I do think they're incredibly disrespectful.

 

[SilentHunter7]

So it's perfectly ok to create an overt advertising campaign where a game is marketed towards people under the age limit required to actually purchase it?

Yeah, why not? As long as their parents are buying it for them, what's the issue?

It's alright to have an advertising campaign that completely devalues the perceptions of videogaming as a serious form of media, in a time where an incredibly serious vote will be made on said subject?

Seriously? How can people not see this is incredibly dumb and detrimental to videogaming as an entertainment medium.

Not every drawing has to be the Mona Lisa. Sometimes we just want to check out a Thor comic. There's a place in the game industry for the Duke Nukems and Dead Spaces of the world, just as there is a place in the movie industry for the Ace Venturas and the Expendables of the world.

Just because games CAN be art, doesn't mean games HAVE to be art.

 

[GiantRaven]

Not every drawing has to be the Mona Lisa. Sometimes we just want to look up a Thor comic. There's a place in the game industry for the Duke Nukems and Dead Spaces of the world, just as there is a place in the movie industry for the Ace Venturas and the Expendables of the world.

I didn't even vaguely put forward this idea, which I don't even agree with in the first place. Yeah, all games can be different. Not every game has to push forward an ideal. I get that. I like that. I'll be out there playing Duke Nukem when it comes out. That doesn't mean it's ok to make stupid advertising campaigns that are more likely to do harm to the videogame industry than good.

Just because games CAN be art, doesn't mean games HAVE to be art.

There's a whole other topic out there if you want to discuss that. And believe me, I can discuss the shit out of that.

 

[EPolleys]

No, I have no plans to send EA an angry email about how 3 people took notice to their offensive ads and apparently I should too. As other people have previously stated this episode in particular was way too preachy to take seriously. I respect what they are trying to do but lately they just sort of come off as try-hards. I have no reason to hate EA, I have more of their games than any other publisher/developer. Not to mention their customer service is absolutely superb, they got back to me within the hour after complaining about how my veteran status in Bad Company 2 wasn't working so they just went ahead and gave me veteran status for ALL previous Battlefield games.

 

[Staskala]

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

Please define your idea of "progress".

Why would progress and EA's strategy be mutually exclusive?
You need to cater to the "lowest common denominator" first if you want to get anywhere.
Even within Hollywood the general idea is "Make generic blockbusters to raise the funds and reputation to make the movies you actually want to".

Just see "generic shit" as a neccessary evil to get anywhere rather than something that hurts the industry (by making it grow appareantly).

That's not what I said at all. It just seems like you're trying to snuff out people's idealism about the future of gaming when as a community people should hope for the evolution of the industry.

I'm "snuffing out" something?

Sorry, but I'm not the one going around telling others how a community should behave.

Why is it that with idealism always comes a holier-than-thou attitude?

 

[SilentHunter7]

Not every drawing has to be the Mona Lisa. Sometimes we just want to look up a Thor comic. There's a place in the game industry for the Duke Nukems and Dead Spaces of the world, just as there is a place in the movie industry for the Ace Venturas and the Expendables of the world.

I didn't even vaguely put forward this idea, which I don't even agree with in the first place. Yeah, all games can be different. Not every game has to push forward an ideal. I get that. I like that. I'll be out there playing Duke Nukem when it comes out. That doesn't mean it's ok to make stupid advertising campaigns that are more likely to do harm to the videogame industry than good.

Is it hurting the industry? I don't think so. Interactive entertainment is a 100 billion dollar industry [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103064-Videogame-Industry-Worth-Over-100-Billion-Worldwide]. People who don't play anyway getting the wrong impression isn't likely to put a dent in that.

-Edited: I low-balled the worth of the industry

 

[GiantRaven]

Is it hurting the industry? I don't think so. Interactive entertainment is a 100 billion dollar industry [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103064-Videogame-Industry-Worth-Over-100-Billion-Worldwide]. People who don't play anyway getting the wrong impression isn't likely to put a dent in that.

-Edited: I low-balled the worth of the industry

People getting the wrong impression are just customers who haven't been given the right impression yet.

 

[FernandoV]

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

Please define your idea of "progress".

Why would progress and EA's strategy be mutually exclusive?
You need to cater to the "lowest common denominator" first if you want to get anywhere.
Even within Hollywood the general idea is "Make generic blockbusters to raise the funds and reputation to make the movies you actually want to".

Just see "generic shit" as a neccessary evil to get anywhere rather than something that hurts the industry (by making it grow appareantly).

That's not what I said at all. It just seems like you're trying to snuff out people's idealism about the future of gaming when as a community people should hope for the evolution of the industry.

I'm "snuffing out" something?

Sorry, but I'm not the one going around telling others how a community should behave.
I think it is well within my rights to argue back when people tell me what to do something I don't agree with.

Why is it that with idealism always comes a holier-than-thou attitude?

I said it seems. Stop being so sensitive; I'm trying to have a conversation here, not accuse you. Jesus Christ.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Do films, a game trailers equal...

Since when? Film as a popular fiction media is far larger and has a much greater following than games. As a result, it is better understood and has earned a pass of sorts for portraying more mature material, if only because it's been around for longer.

Gaming hasn't been around long enough to gain the maturity to allow it to show more grown-up/uncomfortable stuff, so can't afford to be beset by campaigns suggesting that such material is included 'for teh lulz'.

Imagine if the first western films had been countered by groups suggesting that the endless sand blunted the imagination, or that the sheriff as a hero figure idolised authority too much. Then imagine the film's producers had jumped on bored suggesting that 'Your Mum says no to authority'. Think what that would have done to societal evolution (OK, bad example. But the point's there)

 

[Dogstile]

No, the marketing is brilliant and it works. "Oh no, it hurts the gaming community" no, it really doesn't. A couple trailers from one company won't hurt an entire industry.

 

[Dragonpit]

Reading all this posts I can see a lot going on, but it occurred to me as I read the arguments that "EA's business position is simply this and we should just leave it alone" that the underlying core of this whole argument overall is, to put it simply, what is it that we want from our games.

The truth of the matter is we can't simply make EA listen to us. They seek to do business and that's the way of things. And the truth is, with things as they are, that's acceptable. But that's only if we want games to improve as games alone.

I don't know. I don't see anything wrong with that, honestly, but that feels like a squandering of potential here. Games can be so much more than just games. They can be art. They have writing. They have visuals. They have acting. The interactive medium they offer is simply a bonus, and if we want it to be acknowledged as such...the truth is EA's little marketing scheme is gonna hurt.

Whether or not something is art is dependent on the view of the public at large, but the stereotype is that video games are generally for kids. We know this isn't true and that the average gamer is in his 30's. This brings about a second stereotype: the average gamer lives with his mom and has absolutely no life. Again we know this is false. But these two stereotypes are the main enemy of games becoming a form of art. EA's Dead Space commercial only further serves to reinforce these stereotypes.

Again, EA is only a business and the commercial does do what it does best: market the game. As far as games go by themselves, nothing wrong with that. I cannot stress that enough. But for games as an art medium...well, let's analyze it. The game is rated M for Mature, ages 17 and up, but the game is being marketed towards teenagers below the rating's suggested guideline. Sure, the ESRB rating system is a guideline and not the law, but it does nothing to allay stereotypes. But then, if it were just a guideline, we wouldn't have cashiers refusing to sell M-rated games to unattended kids, even when they have the money.

So what can be done about this? As it has been stated numerous time throughout the thread, EA isn't about to respond to boycotts or angry vid letters. So I'm thinking, if anyone wants EA to change their marketing policy, they should probably just get a position in EA's marketing department, a job where they'll matter, and change things. Success in any perspective is up in the air, but it will be more likely to show results, both good and bad.

And as far as Extra Credits goes, they have made their point. They have made their position clear, and they are defending and supporting it. Preachy or not, this is their opinion and they are sharing it. It's still up to the public to decide what to make of it. If anybody does not like what they are saying, then I have to ask: why are they watching in the first place? Or even, why aren't the making their own videos and providing their own counterpoint?

That where this pompous, sonuva!@#$% stands.

 

[wolfchylde]

The problem is, pandering is STILL pandering, and the 'everyone does it' answer is about as paper-thin as you can get.

I thought Dante's Inferno was an awful God of War wannabe, and I remember all their attempts at marketing it only reminded me how HARD they were trying to be 'cool' and 'edgy'... And you know what? It came off exactly like a room full of people out of touch with the current world came up with this marketing plan. It so painfully missed the mark and was so transparently idiotic that it insulted me to the point I wouldn't give it a second look. The Dead Space 2 campaign? Again, so painfully desperate to force 'controversy' into the mix that I rolled my eyes and said 'pass'.

People may call Extra Credits 'preachy' on that one, but ultimately the point is still valid: If you're still relying on 'controversy' (and painfully forced controversy at that!) to market your game, you come off as shallow, desperate, and out of touch. Games CAN and DO sell on their merits, so the necessity to stoop to the lowest grade pandering doesn't actually BENEFIT the games they're trying to sell, if anything they ultimately wind up HURTING sales.

Also, considering how awful the general level of spelling and punctuation are on this board, I don't think spamming pants-on-head retarded posts to them to watch a video here would do much good overall.