• 148 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1146 posts) -


#2 Edited by CrossTheAtlantic (1146 posts) -

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.

#3 Edited by impartialgecko (1686 posts) -
@CrossTheAtlantic said:

So I didn't know

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.
#4 Posted by skyline7284 (508 posts) -

Gun companies make deals with publishers all the time, simply to license the guns. It's not a big deal at all.

#5 Posted by Xolare (1285 posts) -

No. It doesn't. Why do guns bother anybody?

#6 Posted by Shivoa (645 posts) -

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.

#7 Posted by believer258 (12186 posts) -

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.

#8 Posted by CaptainObvious (3000 posts) -

Nah.

#9 Posted by JoeyRavn (4983 posts) -

Not really, no. The reasons exposed by the above posters are more or less the ones I have on the issue.

#10 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1146 posts) -

@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.

#11 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

I have no problem with them using real guns. But linking guns in game is a little odd. It kind of creates a link between killing, games, and guns.

#12 Posted by Brendan (8136 posts) -

@believer258 said:

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.

#13 Posted by J12088 (462 posts) -

I'm guessing this is an American thing. I don't think they'd get away with it in the UK.

#14 Posted by Bell_End (1203 posts) -

of course i do. its EA, we have to hate everything EA says or does

#15 Posted by Undeadpool (4997 posts) -

@skyline7284 said:

Gun companies make deals with publishers all the time, simply to license the guns. It's not a big deal at all.

This. And I'm OUT before this thread goes political.

#16 Posted by LikeaSsur (1592 posts) -

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.

#17 Posted by AlexW00d (6435 posts) -

If they're so up and friendly with gun manufacturers, why couldn't they get a H&K license for BF3? Bastards.

#18 Posted by Shivoa (645 posts) -

@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.

#19 Posted by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

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.

#20 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -

There goes the quality of our guns.

#21 Posted by Xolare (1285 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

If they're so up and friendly with gun manufacturers, why couldn't they get a H&K license for BF3? Bastards.

M5K my ass.

#22 Edited by Baal_Sagoth (1290 posts) -

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.

#23 Posted by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

I should be able to use an M8 Avenger, or an M92 Mantis.

#24 Posted by jjnen (661 posts) -
@Brendan

@believer258 said:

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?
#25 Posted by believer258 (12186 posts) -

@Brendan said:

@believer258 said:

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.

#26 Edited by kgb0515 (405 posts) -

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.

#27 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

@blueduck said:

There goes the quality of our guns.

Yeah, totally.

Imagine if they got deals with knife manufacturers, though!

#28 Posted by ModernAlkemie (366 posts) -

I'm very upset...that they won't include an assault rifle in a special edition package of the game.

#29 Posted by Anund (940 posts) -

@Rappelsiini said:

@Brendan

@believer258 said:

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?

In more ways than one, friend.

#30 Posted by Brendan (8136 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Brendan said:

@believer258 said:

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!

#31 Posted by Slag (4864 posts) -

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.

#32 Posted by laserbolts (5365 posts) -

No why would this bother me?

#33 Posted by BaconGames (3574 posts) -

@kgb0515 said:

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".

#34 Posted by believer258 (12186 posts) -

@Brendan said:

@believer258 said:

@Brendan said:

@believer258 said:

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.

#35 Edited by Akrid (1356 posts) -

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.

#36 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

not really, since they probably need the license for the game.

#37 Posted by Fattony12000 (7564 posts) -

GUNS

KILL

KIDS

#38 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1682 posts) -

It really rubs me the wrong way, especially since the theme of MoH is shooting people (not hunting, target shooting, self-defence or whatever bullshit the NRA has come up with), but I think most people who would be influenced by this would have been buying guns anyway -- it's not like some kid is going to say "wait, I can buy these guns?" (or maybe I'm underestimating human idiocy).

This is a horrible PR move though. This is the kind of thing that could blow up horribly in EA's face (it plays nicely into the "video games lead to violence" narrative) and for what, a bit of a affiliate money?

#39 Posted by Sin4profit (3003 posts) -

I don't see the problem. People are fanatical about guns in-game, guns are a product that can be sold, i'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.

#40 Posted by gike987 (1779 posts) -

@Slag said:

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.

#41 Posted by CheapPoison (742 posts) -

This is by far the most minor thing that we should be mad for at EA.

#42 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

I'd rather they have licenses and links to purchase guns from imaginary manufacturers. I hear Dahl makes awesome guns

#43 Edited by CrossTheAtlantic (1146 posts) -

@gike987 said:

@Slag said:

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.

#44 Posted by jakkblades (401 posts) -

Nerp. We got rights to games and rights to guns. You aren't trying to take em away, are you?

#45 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

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.

@blueduck said:

There goes the quality of our guns.

I see what you did there.

#46 Posted by phrali (646 posts) -

yeah so this is happening, but people are losing their shit over 'girlfriend mode'. Wtf gb community

#47 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -

@Slag said:

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.

#48 Posted by spartanlolz92 (511 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Brendan said:

@believer258 said:

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.

#49 Posted by Monopolized (457 posts) -

Did anyone who played through MW3 notice that ever gun was made my Remmington.. well for the most part.

#50 Posted by That1BlackGuy (217 posts) -

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.