So I didn't know about this until I came across this article on the Gameological Society, but apparently the new Medal of Honor: Warfighter is sponsored by gun manufacturers in an attempt to bring the utmost realism to the game. Where it gets a little uncomfortable, though, is that EA then links you to the real-life weapons which you are then able to purchase. I don't fall into the knee-jerk anti-gunness (though, I do think there should be a conversation as to availability), but something about this makes me pretty uncomfortable, and I'm curious to see as what you all think. It potentially seems problematic, too, in that it creates a (here literally) potential link between video games and potential gun violence, and I feel, heaven forbid, that EA might've set themselves up for a giant clusterfuck if the media at large catches wind of this.
Also Activision have deals with manufacturers to use their brands in Call of Duty. If you start pulling at the thread then virtually every modern military game may have had to license the use of certain names of weapons.
Nope, no more than seeing accurate replicas of historical weaponry in wagames does. If you're making a fiction in a real-like setting then having real objects there is part of the immersion. If old Rainbow Six games want to make their gameplay around the accurate statistics of real-world weaponry then so be it; they're making their options for tweaking the game design more restricted but that is part of the design ethos (sim) that we see in a lot of games and people seems completely capable of making a game I'm excited to play within that restricted design choice.
Real weapons are real and kill people, but imagining real weapons or virtually exploring them is just play. The social contract is all about working responsibly to maximise our freedom and just because something exists in the real world I don't think we should take it off the table for fiction or try and hide that link.
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
@adam1808: @skyline7284: @Xolare: @Shivoa: It's not the guns that specifically bother me (guns don't really bother me as I own several and used to go hunting, though I haven't in a few years), but that EA is creating a direct link between the game and the ability to purchase the guns featured in the game. As @believer258 points out, people could already track down the guns if they wanted to, but I find the bridge EA is creating to be a morally messy one, at best.
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
Hmmmm. Having the link right to the guns is a little odd. They probably shouldn't have gone that far. All it takes is one murder after that game is released with one of those guns to send EA into a PR nightmare the likes of which they've never seen.
@CrossTheAtlantic: In my country then you can't own most of the weapons seen in games (not always the case, I have done some shooting while growing up and see no issue with licensed ranges with locked weapon caches run by professionals to enable the sport of shooting to continue - it's good fun to practice shooting; I'm not so convinced about the need of citizens to have their own weapons but there are plenty of countries where that is the case and they are still safe) so I won't be able to buy those guns.
I still think my point stands, if you rename the weapons (as CS did at one point to avoid licensing issues when it wasn't a mod any more) then you're not really changing anything and making it easier to buy the guns you see online (if you live somewhere where that is legal) doesn't seem that weird as it's only removing the step of Google in the middle.
It's not like they're linking to Cody, the guy at the Circle K who can sell you a Tec-9 machine pistol with the serial shaved off if you have either 100 bucks or an eightball.
I always really fucking despised games (to an irrational extent to be fair) that use models that are extremely close to real guns but than have bogus names that are more or less funny or close to the actual name of the weapon. Thinking of Counterstrike for example. And if game developers use actual guns they'll have to make some deals with the license holders anyway which isn't perfect of course. But authenticity at least in the naming conventions is much more important to me than a futile attempt to keep any outside business out of our games.
Edit: Oh damn, so I now also read through some more of that article and not just the bare facts. That silly writer is going to fucking start his pseudo-serious 'journalistic' effort by namedropping the Dark Knight shooting incident. What has this to do with anything? Now I wish I hadn't responded at all and checked if any of this was actually worth taking somewhat serious. Which it is clearly not if you pretend to tackle an interesting and complex topic and immediately start by being manipulative and rambling instead of keeping it focussed on an actual question.
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
I think it's against the law to own nuclear weapons. So is US' government an outlaw?
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
Did you know that handguns and rifles are affordable and ground-to-air missiles aren't?
I have no fear of anyone breaking into my home with a ground-to-air missile in their pocket. Granted, I don't have much of a fear of anyone breaking into my home with a handgun, either, because that doesn't happen often in the area where I live - but it happens often enough in other parts of America for me to support keeping a gun.
Oh, and the smartass thought that's already forming in your head, the one that says "well, if you didn't have guns in the first place...", that's an idealistic one. Sure, if we didn't have many guns circulating in the first place, then making it illegal to own one wouldn't bother me. But the fact is that we do, and the American government isn't going to start an initiative to take them all from a country that strongly believes in their ability to keep them - such a move would be political folly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, and give your next reply half a second's thought.
I'm less concerned about the fact that they are licensing the guns and more concerned by the fact that videogames are being used more and more for product placement. I'm not completely against it, but somehow I feel like it cheapens the games I play. Providing links to purchase the guns makes the game feel more like a catalogue than I would like.
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
I think it's against the law to own nuclear weapons. So is US' government an outlaw?
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
Did you know that handguns and rifles are affordable and ground-to-air missiles aren't?
I have no fear of anyone breaking into my home with a ground-to-air missile in their pocket. Granted, I don't have much of a fear of anyone breaking into my home with a handgun, either, because that doesn't happen often in the area where I live - but it happens often enough in other parts of America for me to support keeping a gun.
Oh, and the smartass thought that's already forming in your head, the one that says "well, if you didn't have guns in the first place...", that's an idealistic one. Sure, if we didn't have many guns circulating in the first place, then making it illegal to own one wouldn't bother me. But the fact is that we do, and the American government isn't going to start an initiative to take them all from a country that strongly believes in their ability to keep them - such a move would be political folly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, and give your next reply half a second's thought.
I bolded the part in your post that my joke referred to, to make it even more obvious that it was a joke. You're welcome!
Oh good lord, this is the stupidest thing EA could have done. Allowing people to virtually testdrive real assault weapons through the game and then linking to a store where they can then purchase them. Are you freakin kidding me? What moron in EA legal rubberstamped this idea. All it takes is one idiot to do something dumb with one of those guns for this to go really really wrong.
The game industry has spent the better part of two decades trying to convince activist groups and the government that games are safe for kids and don't cause violence (and thus don't need censorship). This totally torpedoes that from a PR standpoint. Once some parent groups hear of this they are going to freak and you know this will be on news channel and possibly get picked up the presidential campaigns. Every hack lawyer and tv personality is going to be all over this. I bet Fox News will sit on this until it's a good time for the Romney campaign.
The newsmedia already mangles the truth when talking about games, this is giving them a free pass to do so.
This sort of stupidity could lead to major censorship in games.
I'm less concerned about the fact that they are licensing the guns and more concerned by the fact that videogames are being used more and more for product placement. I'm not completely against it, but somehow I feel like it cheapens the games I play. Providing links to purchase the guns makes the game feel more like a catalogue than I would like.
While I happen to not be affected by it like you, I think there's something to this sentiment with this issue. Its less the issue of guns or whatever but the way EA is trying to act like licensing these brands is supposed makes the game more "real" or "authentic". Sure its a nice touch if it was in the background for those who would know to recognize the brand but this is just marketing pure and simple. I give EA the benefit of the doubt probably more than most but this just comes off as desperate. Since when did great games ever need a licensing deal to really cinch that realism? Its one thing for the look of the game to resemble the setting, and licensing to make that happen is welcome, but this is just branding and advertising under the excuse that its "immersive".
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
Did you know that handguns and rifles are affordable and ground-to-air missiles aren't?
I have no fear of anyone breaking into my home with a ground-to-air missile in their pocket. Granted, I don't have much of a fear of anyone breaking into my home with a handgun, either, because that doesn't happen often in the area where I live - but it happens often enough in other parts of America for me to support keeping a gun.
Oh, and the smartass thought that's already forming in your head, the one that says "well, if you didn't have guns in the first place...", that's an idealistic one. Sure, if we didn't have many guns circulating in the first place, then making it illegal to own one wouldn't bother me. But the fact is that we do, and the American government isn't going to start an initiative to take them all from a country that strongly believes in their ability to keep them - such a move would be political folly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, and give your next reply half a second's thought.
I bolded the part in your post that my joke referred to, to make it even more obvious that it was a joke. You're welcome!
It sounded a lot like you were parodying the idea that "if we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns". Jokes on the internet aren't always clearly jokes.
It's kind of gross. I guess this is sort of hypocritical of me, but somehow shooting a thousand people and then being told all about the manufacturer would ground it in an unsettling way. Strangely, I really don't think about the horrors of war when playing war games, but if you start bringing up names that have a direct correlation to uglier things in the world, it might make me a bit uneasy simply for the fact that I'd begin to think about bad things.
But yeah, only maniacs and criminals would actually play the game and say, "Hey, I'm gonna go shoot dudes too!", so little danger there except this maybe saves them a Google search.
Oh good lord, this is the stupidest thing EA could have done. Allowing people to virtually testdrive real assault weapons through the game and then linking to a store where they can then purchase them. Are you freakin kidding me? What moron in EA legal rubberstamped this idea. All it takes is one idiot to do something dumb with one of those guns for this to go really really wrong.
The game industry has spent the better part of two decades trying to convince activist groups and the government that games are safe for kids and don't cause violence (and thus don't need censorship). This totally torpedoes that from a PR standpoint. Once some parent groups hear of this they are going to freak and you know this will be on news channel and possibly get picked up the presidential campaigns. Every hack lawyer and tv personality is going to be all over this. I bet Fox News will sit on this until it's a good time for the Romney campaign.
The newsmedia already mangles the truth when talking about games, this is giving them a free pass to do so.
This sort of stupidity could lead to major censorship in games.
Not only are they linking them they are teaming up to make this limited edition Tomahawk. This is beyond stupid, if someone gets caught using a video game branded axe "designed specifically for Medal of Honor: Warfighter with input from the game designers" to do anything illegal video games may be in for some serious censoring.
Oh good lord, this is the stupidest thing EA could have done. Allowing people to virtually testdrive real assault weapons through the game and then linking to a store where they can then purchase them. Are you freakin kidding me? What moron in EA legal rubberstamped this idea. All it takes is one idiot to do something dumb with one of those guns for this to go really really wrong.
The game industry has spent the better part of two decades trying to convince activist groups and the government that games are safe for kids and don't cause violence (and thus don't need censorship). This totally torpedoes that from a PR standpoint. Once some parent groups hear of this they are going to freak and you know this will be on news channel and possibly get picked up the presidential campaigns. Every hack lawyer and tv personality is going to be all over this. I bet Fox News will sit on this until it's a good time for the Romney campaign.
The newsmedia already mangles the truth when talking about games, this is giving them a free pass to do so.
This sort of stupidity could lead to major censorship in games.
Not only are they linking them they are teaming up to make this limited edition Tomahawk. This is beyond stupid, if someone gets caught using a video game branded axe "designed specifically for Medal of Honor: Warfighter with input from the game designers" to do anything illegal video games may be in for some serious censoring.
Yeah, I saw that in the Gameological article I linked. Seems like a super short-sighted PR move. You don't even have to do anything really illegal with it. Just have a high school show up to school with it in the car, someone sees it, zero-tolerance policy kicks in, media hears about it, and it escalates from there.
@Example1013: The Soviet KF7 is particularly awesome.
If guns were illegal I might be bothered by it. I see nothing wrong with linking to any legal product. Not sure exactly what the big controversy is anyway considering a lot of the games EA publishes feature explicit violence.
Oh good lord, this is the stupidest thing EA could have done. Allowing people to virtually testdrive real assault weapons through the game and then linking to a store where they can then purchase them. Are you freakin kidding me? What moron in EA legal rubberstamped this idea. All it takes is one idiot to do something dumb with one of those guns for this to go really really wrong.
The game industry has spent the better part of two decades trying to convince activist groups and the government that games are safe for kids and don't cause violence (and thus don't need censorship). This totally torpedoes that from a PR standpoint. Once some parent groups hear of this they are going to freak and you know this will be on news channel and possibly get picked up the presidential campaigns. Every hack lawyer and tv personality is going to be all over this. I bet Fox News will sit on this until it's a good time for the Romney campaign.
The newsmedia already mangles the truth when talking about games, this is giving them a free pass to do so.
This sort of stupidity could lead to major censorship in games.
...except FNC and Romney voters aren't exactly anti-gun. Heck, I'd support him more if he came out for this.
Better than Activision doing this. You'd then see the guns run into the ground inside of 3 years.
Couldn't you have looked up those websites anyway?
I'm not at all saying this is a good thing - I support gun rights for self defense and hunting purposes, no one needs an assault rifle - but if someone was looking for those websites, they could have just looked them up.
If you outlaw ground-to-air missiles then only outlaws will have ground-to-air missiles.
Did you know that handguns and rifles are affordable and ground-to-air missiles aren't?
I have no fear of anyone breaking into my home with a ground-to-air missile in their pocket. Granted, I don't have much of a fear of anyone breaking into my home with a handgun, either, because that doesn't happen often in the area where I live - but it happens often enough in other parts of America for me to support keeping a gun.
Oh, and the smartass thought that's already forming in your head, the one that says "well, if you didn't have guns in the first place...", that's an idealistic one. Sure, if we didn't have many guns circulating in the first place, then making it illegal to own one wouldn't bother me. But the fact is that we do, and the American government isn't going to start an initiative to take them all from a country that strongly believes in their ability to keep them - such a move would be political folly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, and give your next reply half a second's thought.
what some people dont realize is that putting the genie back in the bottle is very hard to do.
Not all that upsetting for me personally, it's not like they're linked to some illegal weapons trade or black market smuggling. As far as certain newsmedia, activists and whatnot, they're going to slander the medium no matter what that's just the nature of our social landscape.
Log in to comment