Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Chewster]

I don't think I was going to buy it, but I can appreciate your stance and can get behind it.

 

[C95J]

I'm not buying it, but only because I didn't want to buy it in the first place.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

He's done it on my topic as well.

Probably due to an inflated sense of self-importance.

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

Jesus Christ...really? That's a terrible stance to take, for two reasons:

1) No one would buy a game because it's shit no matter if they censored something in it. It's not a boycott unless it's a service or good that people would actually PAY FOR OTHERWISE.

2) So in other words, if the Montgomery Bus Services had AC and leather seating, Rosa Parks would have planted her ass firmly in the back of the bus?

Quality does not play into the equation. Boycotts are about *sacrifice*. Why do you think that strikes and boycotts in other affairs are a big deal to *both* sides of the argument?

 

[Sir Prize]

I don't plan to buy this game because I have no interest in it so this doesn't really concern me, apart from the fact that you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It's one word, get over it, they were pressured into changing it, but so what?

 

[ToxinArrow]

ITT: OP trolls anyone who actually knows that EA wasn't censored.

OT: Medal of Honor looks shit. Never was going to buy it. Only reason they changed it was, as others with half a brain have pointed out, was because EA will generate more sales the less negative hype there is around the game.

 

[freedomweasel]

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.

My point is, freedom of speech works both ways. The families didn't like the word, they can voice their concerns. No mind reading was attempted, you clearly dislike the decision EA made.

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?

/s = sarcasm. I was making a reference to your post which claimed there was a violation of rights because group A asked group B to shut up. You are now group C asking group D to do something. I can't tell you where first amendment rights are being violated in either case.. that's the point.

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 not sure if it qualifies as faulty logic, the gamer boycotts almost always go the same way. A huge number of gamers don't read gaming news, and therefore will never read your petition. It seems delusional to think that this thread will have an impact. I never said you shouldn't continue your boycott for this reason, I simply stated the most likely outcome.


The rest of your post quoted other people as myself, so I'll leave them to respond to their own arguments.

 

[RogueDarkJedi]

Why does anyone even care if they changed it or not? It's not that big of a deal. Seriously. EA only changed the naming, and that was because the DoD wouldn't buy the game where a player could be the Taliban.

It makes sense, since EA gets loads of money from the DoD (for game centers and such), if the military doesn't buy MoH, EA has lost a fairly large portion of its profits. This is not an issue about censorship, it's an issue about how much money EA will make from the game (in addition, if the military likes this game, they'll probably sign an agreement with EA to purchase their titles for the next 2-3 years [and EA doesn't wanna miss out on that]).

If you are seriously boycotting because of the fact you can't play as a team called "the Taliban", then you seriously need to chill out. You are making a big deal about a name change. EA said before that they wouldn't change the name until they found out that they would be losing money off of the game.

 

[j0frenzy]

He's done it on my topic as well.

Probably due to an inflated sense of self-importance.

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

Jesus Christ...really? That's a terrible stance to take, for two reasons:

1) No one would buy a game because it's shit no matter if they censored something in it. It's not a boycott unless it's a service or good that people would actually PAY FOR OTHERWISE.

2) So in other words, if the Montgomery Bus Services had AC and leather seating, Rosa Parks would have planted her ass firmly in the back of the bus?

Quality does not play into the equation. Boycotts are about *sacrifice*. Why do you think that strikes and boycotts in other affairs are a big deal to *both* sides of the argument?

You have pretty much moved into the category of offensive comparisons.
1) The bus company was required by the state to segregate their buses. It was not the company, it was the government.
2) The boycott was organized by a bunch of people who all agreed that what the city was doing was wrong, not by a guy with a bully pulpit whining over a non-issue.
3) EA CHOOSING to remove the word Taliban from its game is no where near the same thing as institutionalized segregation. When the government gets involved in actually censoring games, then you will have me ready with a picket sign.

 

[Valkyira]

The only thing more annoying than EA taking the Taliban out of their game, is someone trying to start a boycott.

If you don't want to buy it, fair enough. There are however, people out there that would buy the game regardless of what the enemies are called.

 

[Marowit]

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

My feelings exactly - if I had desposible income right now I'd pick it up if the Taliban mission was still being included (uncensored) to support games doing such things (You know games as a form of artistic expression...and how many freakin' movies about nazis have we all seen?)

My little brother will undoubtedly pick it up though, and so I'll see if it's fun/worth my money by playing around with his copy.

 

[Steve Butts]

Apologies if this has been said, but this topic made me so irritated, I just jumped right to "reply."

Please stop saying this is a constitutional issue. There's nothing at all in the US Constitution that protects corporations from making changes to their product based on negative public opinion.

The only thing in this whole mess that's protected by the First Amendment is citizens expressing outrage at a corporation's actions. So, this is actually a great example of the appropriate protections offered by the First Amendment.

 

[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?

"Vegetta! What's the scouter say about his Enrish level?"

"It's over 9000!"

Nobody forced EA or legally pressured them to change something they wren't happy with. EA voluntarily decided to make the change.

"Under duress" is the phrase you forgot in there. "EA voluntarily under duress 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.

Who cares? Again, under duress. EA would not have changed it had it not been for the hordes of screeching Fun Police demanding that it be changed. If you do something, then change it back because people start screaming for you to, you only get to say it was "voluntary" to save face.

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.

"Tyranny of the majority."

I'm still going to get it, provided it seems good. Though I am somewhat disappointed that they backed down on the Taliban issue.

No, dammit, that's...ugh.

Look: actual boycotts are about refusing a service even though you could still use it, or it would make your life easier. You're supposed to make sacrifice. It's not supposed to be easy.

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.

No, it *is* their fault. The greater fault lies with organizations like the US Army who spit on the Constitution by banning it, then go back to fighting for truth, justice, and the American way, but EA takes blame for succumbing to this sort of pressure.

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.

Think about that, too. What's OpFor's point of controversy going to be? And what's going to happen to it? If EA's precedent is set, we won't get a friendly warning before the level like in MW2: it'll be scrubbed before it hits shelves.

 

[NeoArden]

I think Call of Duty: Black Ops multiplayer is going to be full of ****. I don't have anything against Medal of Honor, I'm even probably gonna buy it. But EA Games have done quite a bit of things to my gaming will. For instance... APB.

Now I'm gonna cry to my pillow as I really liked the MMO where you don't have to be a paladin or a green man slashing zombies or casting fireballs. It had it's bugs, yet nobody noticed the originality of that game. :/

 

[brodie21]

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

Jesus Christ...really? That's a terrible stance to take, for two reasons:

1) No one would buy a game because it's shit no matter if they censored something in it. It's not a boycott unless it's a service or good that people would actually PAY FOR OTHERWISE.

2) So in other words, if the Montgomery Bus Services had AC and leather seating, Rosa Parks would have planted her ass firmly in the back of the bus?

Quality does not play into the equation. Boycotts are about *sacrifice*. Why do you think that strikes and boycotts in other affairs are a big deal to *both* sides of the argument?

god, i love how we are boycotting things before they even come out now. mabye i should have said that i never gave a shit about the whole thing and probably wont get it because i dont need a modern warfare clone. did you read the article about controversy? the whole thing about trying to get more exposure by stirring up a media frenzy? like mass effect of modern warfare 2, they were trying to get exposure, and when they saw that it was getting out of hand they changed the name, it really isnt that big of a victory when they planned this

 

[loremazd]

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.

What unconstitutional means? You can't -force- retailers to sell products they don't want to sell.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Wow, being broke never made me feel like such an activist.

 

[Mortons4ck]

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seeing as Congress has nothing to do with this debacle, I don't see how this is a violation of the First Amendment. This is between two private parties, the government is not involved.


And honestly, will anything really change if "Taliban" is called the "Baliban"?

 

[Kraegnac]

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.

This is a pretty spectacular point you've established right here. It's not about this particular game or the community center, it's about setting a precedent. The people opposing these things have no logical reasons for their opposition, and certainly no legal ones. Pretty much all they've got is "THIS BOTHERS US! YOU BETTER STOP BECAUSE IT BOTHERS US AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED SO STOP BOTHERING US!"

And the thing is, the groups complaining are relatively small. It's not as if there are vast legions of people upset by the fact that the bad guys are Taliban members. This whole thing is a case of explosively nitpicky and preposterous yellow journalism if I've ever seen one.



-.-

 

[Char-Nobyl]

"Vegetta! What's the scouter say about his Enrish level?"

"It's over 9000!"

Seriously, wasn't easier to answer my question?

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Apologies if this has been said, but this topic made me so irritated, I just jumped right to "reply."

Please stop saying this is a constitutional issue. There's nothing at all in the US Constitution that protects corporations from making changes to their product based on negative public opinion.

The only thing in this whole mess that's protected by the First Amendment is citizens expressing outrage at a corporation's actions. So, this is actually a great example of the appropriate protections offered by the First Amendment.

But you're painting MOH as a corporate product. Look at it for a moment as if MOH was a work of art, with EA being the artist. Robert Ebert aside, it's textbook art censorship. It's a depiction of warfare that's going on right now, yet it's being forced to pretend that it's not, that the US Army is fighting the Balitan in some made-up world.

People have the right to voice their opinions on *both* sides. I'm clearly doing it here, and they're doing it somewhere. I want the status quo restored, the art as it was intended, or I simply won't be buying the game because it will represent a blunted version of what it was meant to be. If anything, the only *change* I want is for it to be *changed* back to what it was before it was browbeaten by nongamers.