EA is promoting its partnership with real-world weapons manufacturers for Medal of Honor: Warfighter by letting players buy the real thing.
[UPDATE]: Within a couple of hours of this story being published, EA deleted the partner site and Greg Goodrich post links from its Warfighter page, and one of Goodrich's posts. EA has since provided GameSpot with a comment in regards to this, which can be found at the bottom of this article.
What kind of message is a video game publisher like EA sending when it encourages its players to buy weapons?
The race to create a perfect, all-encompassing brand identity that infiltrates every aspect of gamers' lives has become of increasing importance to game publishers. It has also thrown some of the gaming industry's ethical boundaries into question.
In a bid to extend the reach of its Medal of Honor: Warfighter brand, EA chose to test these boundaries by updating the official Warfighter site to include links to the sites of the real-world weapons and weapon accessories manufacturers that are helping turn the game into the "most authentic shooter" yet.
Anyone visiting the Medal of Honor: Warfighter site can click through to these external sites and, where legally permitted, purchase weapons like the ones featured in the game.
More startling than EA linking its players to sites where they can buy real-life weapons to match the ones used in its game is the decision by Medal of Honor executive producer Greg Goodrich to write accompanying blog posts for each of the companies (there are currently 11 listed, three of which manufacture guns or knives) in which he seems to wholeheartedly endorse their products.
In a blog post for the weapons manufacturer McMillan Group International titled "Shoot to win", Goodrich reveals he knows the company's VP and will be featuring four of McMillan's guns in Warfighter.
"I first saw the completed CS5 [described as a 'concealable' sniper system] late last year, and was blown away," Goodrich writes. (His choice of words is apt.) Later in the post, he describes the company's guns as "impressive" and "awe-inspiring":
"It doesn't get any more authentic than this. Check out the McMillan website and shoot to win!"
In another of Goodrich's posts, this time about knife manufacturer SOG Knives, the producer takes the endorsement a step further. After revealing the company will be selling a limited edition Voodoo Hawk tomahawk designed specifically for Warfighter, Goodrich encourages players to "visit their website and reserve your exclusive limited edition Voodoo Hawk today!"
Sure enough, anyone who clicks the link in the post will be taken to SOG's site, where they will be able to fill out a form to be alerted when the weapon becomes available for purchase.
Is this about selling weapons, or making games? Or have the two become inter-changeable?
Promoting weapons (not just promoting, but being excited at the very idea that a Medal of Honor: Warfighter player can use a virtual weapon to kill another player as a form of entertainment and then turn around and order the real version of the same weapon online), feels wrong. It feels wrong even with the understanding and acknowledgement that that there are carefully-enforced restrictions and background checks in place, or that it would be just as easy to seek out and buy these weapons without EA's help.
What makes it feel so wrong is that EA has turned the race for brand identity into an obsession. It has drawn a direct line between a work of fiction and the truth behind it, bridging the gap between fantasy and reality and in doing so, coming dangerously close to glorifying not just the bravery of individuals, but the concept of war itself. There is nothing about endorsing and promoting real-life weapons that makes Medal of Honor: Warfighter a more authentic game, nothing that advances the artform or broadens the boundaries of game development. There is nothing that even entices players to buy more copies of the game.
Some have pointed out that EA is donating all proceeds from sales of its Medal of Honor-themed "merchandise" to the Navy SEAL Foundation and the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. When EA first announced this, president of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation John Carney Jr. claimed the partnership would raise awareness of the foundation's work with families of fallen Special Operations forces.
"This is a great way to give back to some of our country's greatest warriors," Carney Jr. said at the time.
It remains to be seen how the promotion and sale of weapons is a great way to support the families of men and women who died using similar weapons.
This is not the first time's EA's definition of authenticity has come into question. At E3 this year, GameSpot editor Tom Mc Shea questioned Warfighter's regenerating health as being in clear contrast with the game's painstaking efforts to be as "authentic" and realistic as possible.
"Military games have turned war into a silly good time, and yet they hide behind their realistic claims as if they're doing justice to the armed forces," Mc Shea argued. "In reality, they're exploiting the people who give their lives for a cause they believe in. By focusing on instant satisfaction and extreme accessibility, they turn real battles into a virtual fantasyland where no harm is lasting and no danger exists."
Goodrich chose to confront Mc Shea, face-to-face, about his views. In the recorded debate, Goodrich stated that no matter how hard developers try, it's impossible to perfectly simulate a real-world experience in a video game. Authenticity, he argues, is not achievable through game mechanics. It's the stories, and the way these stories are told, that make games feel realistic.
It seems EA is no longer satisfied in having us simply believe these stories are real. It wants us to experience them for ourselves.
GameSpot has received a comment from EA in regards to why the company deleted links to its partners and Goodrich's posts from its Warfighter page. The statement reads:
"After listening to feedback from the community and reviewing our program for supporting veterans, we have withdrawn the Tomahawk from the promotion and removed related URL links on our website. We continue to work with gear manufacturers to provide an authentic videogame experience and to support veteran’s organizations. Medal of Honor is committed to delivering an emotional, authentic depiction of the today’s war and today’s soldiers. It is inspired by real people, real places and real operations. The game is M-Rated and a work of historic fiction. Though a work of entertainment, the themes, scenarios and battles are a sensitive subject and may stir conversation among press and players."
As a former United States Marine I see no problem with this kinda thing. If it helps the families of operators lost in combat its a good cause. End of discussion. This is a 17+ game. If you are letting children play it and they cannot understand the concept of war, you are a bad parent. Letting your children kill their friends online for fun is is retarded if they are not mature enough to handle the content. But instead we should make sure EA doesn't give money to these peoples families right? Last time I checked minors cannot purchase weapons, wheres the issue? It blows me away how so many civilians have opinions on war, having never seen it for themselves. You honestly don't have the right to an opinion if you have never been. Its not like movies, TV, or video games. You cant understand it by reading a book. The only thing gamespot has done here is prevent money from going to people who need it. But they got a good story right? I mean this is good journalism right? Fuck you Laura Parker, and fuck all of you at gamespot that thought giving money to deceased veterans families was a bad idea. For shame.
Tom's a good guy but he got completely owned by Goodrich. Goodrich was clearly armed (forgive the pun) and shot down the things Tom said with the finality of a sniper rifle. I agree with Tom's view on how FPS games are, but Goodrich won the battle over words.
Despite all the "authenticity", MOH WF was nothing more than a generic, by-the-book video game.
EA - just because you advertise by putting links to real weapon manufacturers on your website (which you have now removed), doesn't make your game authentic.
Great article Laura and GS people!, i missed this real analysis from the videogames indsutry, keep on the good way!. My position is that no game should be linked directly to the war industry.
This is ridiculous. I can purchase weapons much easier without the help of EA. I think what they were doing was great and for a great charity. I guess it's wrong to cross brand in order to generate money for our special operations veterans and families. I was one of probably many who was on the email list for the tomahawk. It's a shame that people like Laura have to ruin a good thing for everyone else.
@CplBergUSMC Are you serious?, I mean, i respect your position, i just think you´re not putting yourself in the shoes of other people that are either less ... "perceptive" than you and could possible make no difference between real world and fiction... if you don´t belive and IF you are from the US, just remember about the columbine massacre or the freak from the batman premiere. My position is that games shouldn´t be linked to the war or weapons bussiness directly... that feels just wrong to me.
@daschectron @CplBergUSMC Dash... Should we outlaw steak because babies cant chew it? It is not up to the company that makes video games to be the moral compass for its customers. SOCOM operators go through a lot, but most people forget about the families. Their families go through hell every time they turn on the news. They raise families without their spouse around, and considering that enlisted men are not paid all that well, shit can get rough. I think this was a great promotion. It is a game. Nothing more and nothing less. If you or others cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality then it's no ones fault but your own. I personally find it absurd that this article exists. Ea is not your parent and should not have to be.
EA is crazy . they just want to earn more and its not important to them what they sacrifice. Its game, video game not reality just think of it for a moment that your neighbors buy gun because they play medal of honor its crazy, man .
I don't know how much they pay EA to make them do this but I know that it wasn't too much because last year I played a games that was just created to earn money by any means not to entertained a player.
@DanielAssassin Think about this. Your neighbors can buy guns and not play video games. If people want guns they are going to get guns. Going through google is easier too.
Maybe if you guys looked at this from another point of view besides your own. First off, Medal of Honor focuses on military, elite ones who are looked up to in the military community. Would those in the military be interested in what THEY buy/use? Yes and so it is in the game and why wouldnt you make the link? It isnt going to force you or compel you to purchase anything you were not already going to get any more than my playing Call of Duty would force or compel me to go buy the Call of Duty branded JEEP or support any of it's stuff for the C.O.D.E. IF EA was SELLING this stuff then complain but if they foster awareness and people who are interested purchase and some or all of those funds go to veteran organizations (not to EA mind you) then who is it get is getting hurt in this?
Here's our full response to this issue. http://www.offdutygamers.com/2012/08/response-to-the-morality-police/
Percentage of all people who got exposed to this marketing campaign on MoH website that serve/served in the military: 0,01%
Percentage of all people who got exposed to this marketing campaign on MoH website that are kids or teenagers: 90%
It's just not the place for that advert. Period. And this charity EA is promoting is more like a mocking to the families of the deceased (selling real guns and donate the money to families of people shot by guns? Really?).
@Renato1984 @ODG6Actual I just want to talk about your charity post. I'm a former 0311 and 8621, USMC, and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it offensive that you would put words into the mouths of the widows of deceased operators. Shooters don't get paid much, and in the end money is money. When you need to feed your children I doubt anyone is going to scoff at funds just because a weapons manufacturer donated it. What I find strangest of all about your statement though is the sheer ignorance of it. People who go to war, that live by the gun, know what the risks are, and so do spouses. The world is a dark and dangerous place, its for these reasons people pick up arms and sign up to serve. Guns are what gave you the right to vote, speak freely, do whatever. The people who were "killed by guns", in most cases have a good amount of blood on their hands. Blood drawn with weapons. You have to understand that military members don't inhabit the same, safe world that you do. Guns are neither good nor evil. They are a tool as much as a hammer or a spade is. Guns wielded by American military persons do great things for this country every day. You might like the way in which they create good, but you enjoy the good non the less. This is just another example of how guns can help people.As for the rest of your post... Shitty parenting is and parents being lazy is not EA's concern.
@Renato1984 @ODG6Actual Based on your arguement, there are kids playing 17+ games that should not be. This, like blaming movies, tv and music falls down to the fault of those that should be parenting. If you don't want your kids seeing this due to their age, don't buy them a game that is meant for 17+. Not trying to be mean about it but it is a fact, if you are a parent, parent and don't use games, tv, music or anything else as a substitute to being aware of what your children are doing.
As for the last comment, as a former Marine, I can say I really disagree with you. Charities like the one EA is supporting have provided more support to veterans than the govt has. Game companies and gamers have provided support to our veterans in a lot of ways, this is a more obvious one but this has happened before. It is not mocking considering they have sought input from veterans on their games.
Lastly, I would like to see where you got your 0.01% stat from. I know a lot of active/former military that play games.
@Renato1984 Id appreciate your source for statistics if you're going to quote them for your argument. The game is 17+ based on rating but agreed it gets full teen inclusion but I doubt that its 90% teen/child. They are not advertising, there is nothing that Ive seen that says buy this X or Y. They demonstrate the real world items, tell you how they are in the game and that real operators use them but so far Ive not seen one thing that has a sell story. The partners that have agreed to give a percentage to charity do so on their own directly and the partnership information simply tells the reader what that partner is doing to support the men/women at the other end of the charity.
Your last comment was clearly inciteful and less fact based. These organizations help veterans killed or wounded in action. Real 'guns' that some of these partners make protect more veterans than would ever be harmed by them. Unless you are the family of one of these veterans who feel MOCKED then I'd drop that point. Most would argue you down in a heartbeat and have more cause to do so than your apparent position safe at home. These are people who know and respect the job as well as the price these men pay to keep them safe and Id argue that MOST of the funding that comes to these organizations is based in and around the military complex because WE take care of our own far more often than not.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat ill take full responsibility for that. Its been a pleasure however :D
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat LOL hoplophobe is a tongue in cheek reference from Jeff Cooper, who was one of the most credible experts in firearms defense in the world. Yes, them just marginalizing Jeff as a "gun nut" would be utterly fucking stupid. He was a phenomenal person.
Yes, if someone is acting nutty, they should be reported to the authorities and this happens all the time. Gun owners do a damned good job for the most part of policing one another if necessary.
No, the "hoplophobes" do not have a rational, objective approach because they base their fears on "military weapons", "machine guns", "wild west", and other catch words to cause knee jerk reactions while ignoring empirical evidence that is already available. This has been colorfully demonstrated on here with frequent mentions of the high US gun violence rate, though a deliberate omission of the crime rate dropping to 1960s levels. This is one example of this intellectual dishonesty. If somebody can provide a link that proves that gun ownership advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages ill concede my position.
As far as risk management goes, there is not enough education. I think everybody can agree with this. America as no shortage of laws or restrictions for guns, drugs, and other things regulated, though the education is severely lacking. again, "just say no" just because is not working.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat nobody will win as long as there is name calling. that goes both ways.
Im not trying to defeat them either, which is where i conflict with the NRA, i just want to convince them to leave me alone since im going to be doing the same. Gun owners do a damned good job at self policing, but we can do a lot better and self policing is also beneficial for widening that gap between legal owners and criminals that illegally obtain guns.
@Gelugon_baat Cooper meant that humorously. If you studied his work, you would know that. Most instructors dont give a shit what your politics are or your views on guns. he was one of the most rational minds in the realm of self defense and firearms.
yes, it is a shortcut. you can descend into a Orwellian 1984 hell and be "totally safe" :D to be dramatic.
Youre right as far as the short cuts go. It is more difficult to convince the state to keep your rights rather than give them up for safety. Life is a bitch that way. I think we have made good progress since the 1980s when we went from damn near having guns criminalized to most states allowing concealed carry and semi-automatics.
there is plenty of evidence that the "gun ownership" solution works, but it is conveniently ignored. even the lowest estimation of defensive gun uses per year is between 150,000-200,000.
@Gelugon_baat eh thats where our views differ. There is a polar opposite for everything since a anti-gun person is also not going to be objective when it comes to firearms. how can you approach firearms objectively if a firearms technician, armorer, gunsmith is not considered "objective"? This person, in my opinion, will approach them more rationally than somebody that fears them or holds a form of contempt.
Insulting and cherry picking statistics isn't going to shut the "gun nuts" up either. Neither is comparing them to cowboys and reminding them what century they live in LOL.
and we do have that same goal, but the manner in which we accomplish that goal is different. I certainly believe that it is unnecessary to give up rights in order to attain that goal. It is also my belief that any goal that absolutely requires the infringement of a Constitutional Amendment is counter-productive to liberty and should be scrapped. thats a can of worms alert too.
A significant number of Americans do not believe in trading liberty for perceived improvements in security, especially since past history reveals that such infringements for security yielded no gains. thats just my .2cents.
"Well, Jeff Cooper's certainly not being any less rash than the "hoplophobes" when he made that crack.
To me, it's just silly tit-for-tat; it's not a mark of being more rational. :/"
to you its silly tit-for-tat, but it goes back to the credibility argument. Sorry to say, but jeff cooper knew what he was talking about when it comes to firearms. Somebody that knows nothing about firearms that whines about defensive use of firearms is not credible. Im not sure how difficult that is to understand.
"Also, you may want to be reminded of what you have said earlier about the "hoplophobes", e.g. those bits about "control freaks" and "chucklefucks"."
Anybody who believes that "i dont need that type of gun" because "it serves no other purpose" is being a control freak. There is nothing scientific or philosophical about that. Somebody that naively believes that the state will always be there to rescue them and bail them out is a "chucklefuck". Again, nothing scientific or philosophical about that.
"Such rants are not any more essentially different than those that the "hoplophobes" are spouting, if what you are saying about what they are saying happens to be true and documented."
Actually they are essentially different. I really do not know how to explain this any clearer. There have been good debates about firearms ownership and there have been personal attacks. I respond as I see fit.
"Furthermore, the last thing you may want to mention when arguing your point is to mention overall crime rates, which are affected by more than just proliferation of firearms, to counter arguments that cite "high gun-related violence rate"."
Like I have said before, at least several times, there are a large number of variables besides the proliferation of firearms. Poverty, unemployment, cultural/ethic tension, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I always bring up parts of facts that seem to be conveniently ignored.
"The latter argument still has the advantage of said violence still involving guns - there is no changing this fact, even though there are plenty of factors that influence such violence. They will always be able to utter these: "shots fired, people died"."
yes violence involves guns and i havent denied that. there is also no changing the fact that the 20,000 state, federal, and local laws pertaining to firearms did nothing to deter the instances of gun violence that did happen. There is a immeasurable quantity of variables to violence. I believe that the "gun supplies = high gun violence rate" is a broad generalization that does not even deserve a place among rational discussions about statistics.
"The only counter-argument to this that is absolutely convincing is that there is little to no gun-related violence at all. Otherwise, you will never be able to counter the "hoplophobes" argument."
I have never attempted to counter that there are large statistics of gun violence in our country. Never. Im completely aware of that. In the aforementioned point that keeps getting spread around, that is why I bring up Switzerland. High supply of guns, low comparative violence.
"In other words, you and other proponents of responsible weapon use still have a lot, lot more to do. Bashing the "hoplophobes" isn't going to stop the misuse of firearms."
So do the "hoplophobes" indicating by what ive seen here so far. There have been two people that i have actually enjoyed responding to: yourself and Jamoid because you bring up valid points that I agree with in many instances. On the opposite side, blaming guns is not going to stop misuse of firearms. I guess its a mexican standoff :D
This system of charity proposed by EA is the same as selling booze to donate the money to A.A. Just find another way to obtain the money. Period.
And everyone who is against this unscrupulous marketing campaign here, is against THIS UNSCRUPULOUS MARKETING CAMPAIGN HERE. Not against your heavenly rights given to you by the founding fathers of carrying deadly weapons with you to protect you from something.
In other words, we don't oppose the adult americans' right of owning a gun, we oppose promoting/gorifying/encouraging to kids and teens the idea of owning real guns. Specially when it's done via mottos like "shoot to win".
And remember hundreds or thousands of non-american children would be exposed to the advert to. So it's NOT only americans that are affected by this.
@Renato1984 "This system of charity proposed by EA is the same as selling booze to donate the money to A.A. Just find another way to obtain the money. Period."
No its not. These companies, complying with state department international trade agreements, do not sell to hostile countries or organizations that harm US service members.
A example of selling booze to donate to the AA would be money from Irans weapons sales going to charity for service members.
what's wrong with encouraging kids and teens the idea of owning real guns when they turn of age? nothing as far as im concerned. parents teach kids to shoot all the time in the US. I would rather my child be interested in rifle marksmanship, archery, and dressing game than video games, TV series, pop culture, drugs, and premarital sex.
Do you deny that american weapons end up killing thousands of american people (including children and teenagers) every year?
I drink alcohol from time to time (analogue to you using your guns), I acknowledge that lots of people die or get sick/injured because of alcohol (analogue to people dying shot by guns), but I still think alcohol shouldn't be sold to donate the money to A.A. (just like guns shouldn't be sold to donate the money to people affected by shootings).
It's like, what EA proposed shouldn't be called charity, it should be called mocking. Though I don't think it was funny at all.
And why didn't anyone say "motorcycle" in place of "car", if motorcycles are much more efficient tools of death?
I've worked in an E.R., I talk to surgeons. Bikes are killing machines.
@Renato1984 NO!!! you noticed that i tried my damndest to keep the cars out! XD
buy yes, there are injures. they can be particularly traumatic to the victim.
@smwlce4 Please, never bring "cars" as an argument. People being killed or getting injured in car accidents is a side effect of that tool we NEED to use for transportation.
@smwlce4 That doesn't take into account injuries by firearms, which also cause serious physical and psychological pain to the victim.
@Renato1984 no i dont deny it. Never have.
Here's a fact (coming from DOJ and FBI statistics): there are 300 million people in the US, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.
As far as EA goes, i dont like first person shooters or any war game. I understand the perception of EA mocking actual combat veterans.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat i am a opposite of a hoplophobe in that i dont have a irrational fear of weapons. Im not the stereotypical "gun nut" with thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition in my abandoned Cold War bunker LOL. I do own many guns of all types and am a former armorer and firearms instructor for police officers. I am extensively experienced with firearms.
not being any less biased? actually i am. I back up my opinions with the mountain of empirical evidence available and have done my home work on firearms. I am going to accuse someone of being biased when they have a opinion about weapons despite knowing jack shit about them.
Let me say this again: I hope more businesses goes to the likes of Larue Tactical, London Bridge Trading, Surefire, Trijicon, Daniel Defense, Mcmillian, Mechanix, etc. do you know anything about these companies? ive been dealing with them for over a decade (many werent even known back then).
There is nothing wrong or evil with these companies. They are providing a outstanding product/service to not only the armed forces and police in america, but foreign countries as well because the anti-gun climate in europe and australia has utterly castrated those countries' arms production and tactical gear edge.
I got another point for you smwlce4:
Do you agree with nuclear weapons development and ownership becoming unrestricted to all countries? Why have the USA, NATO, UN for decades been fighting against nuclear proliferation?
If you think that being well armed and well trained is intrinsic to being a civilized citizen or society, I don't see why you would oppose to letting Iran, Pakistan and North Corea developing as much nuclear bombs as they would like. Isn't the USA trying to promote freedom in those countries? Why would you not let them make nuclear bombs to protect themselves?
Please tell me you see how it falls back to the "it takes only one idiot" argument.
thats my position too. i dont intend on changing somebody's perspective and, like i have said before, i have no horse in this race.
oh i believe in kindness and compassion towards people because I think most are hopelessly lost in the world of "ones" and "zeroes". I truly believe we have lost your spirituality and our essential relationship with the planet in which we live on. Unfortunately, mankind, in his arrogance, believes he has domination over the entire planet and everything is subordinate to him. With the mucky world of toxic politics and increased economic tension in this country, people have really lost touch with their humanity and keep running on the hamster wheel of doom, completely abhorred by the idea of actually having healthy interactions with human beings. its really sad how we have advanced exponentially with technology, but have also lost touch with the basics.
Most gun owners are not doomsdayers. Hell, Im not even close to being a doomsdayer. If its my time, its my time :D LOL, fuck, ive lived a good life! ill save the space in my basement for good wine instead of cans of beans and MREs.
Well, like Jamoid said, I wouldn't still be here talking to people if I wasn't learning, thinking and growing. I read your fair words and I think about them.
Though I haven't much to say right now... other than that the way I see it, some of you would benefit from raising more hospitality and friendship feelings for people in general. I don't want to spend my life "waiting for dark times to come", nor do I want people promoting that feeling.
Ps. "The Grand Chessboard" does seem like a nice read.
1.) I think it is profoundly arrogant that the United States believes that she can be the only bully on the block with a massive thermonuclear arsenal. As far as nuclear weapons go, I believe they allow the world to keep a uneasy peace since the threat of mutually assured destruction makes would-be napoleons and hitlers in check. Other countries obtaining nuclear weapons certainly crimps America's style on the whole full spectrum dominance thing, which explains the west's outright refusal for states like north korea and iran from obtaining weapons. Here's a secret: Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. Israel hasn't and possesses nuclear weapons (unofficially). American double standards at their highest.
2.) being well armed and well trained is intrinsic to being a civilized citizen and society, not because of the threats that we currently face but because of future threats (that I will be very vague about). I remain ambivalent to those countries obtaining nuclear weapons simply because Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty like i said above and has intentions on developing nuclear power. As far as pakistan goes, they are developing nuclear weapons and already have a arsenal. That is a done deal. As far as North Korea goes, they are pursuing nuclear weapons to keep their sovereignty. If they attack any allied country, they will be glassed into the mantle. Of course, conservatives cry "spreading liberty and peace to those countries" which is bullshit. Countries are developing nuclear arsenals simply because they want to maintain their sovereignty, even if it is outside the realm of the US chessboard (to borrow from Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"). Is the US trying to promote freedom? FUCK NO. Again, read "the Grand Chessboard".
Let me guess, you think of me as a card carrying republican, far right conservative that believes in spreading "peace and democracy" worldwide. Sorry to disappoint you, but my proclivities involve leaving people the fuck alone and if they attempt to exploit or kill myself and my family, ill take the necessary steps to defend myself. Thats it.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat To reinforce your argument.
@Gelugon_baat A bunch of people (or their relatives) that have had (supposedly, as this is an internet forum) plenty of experience and knowledge about weapons have already expressed their opinions against weapons proliferation in this forum.
@Gelugon_baat Hell, im not just talking about jeff cooper either. there are many other instructors like Larry Vickers, Travis Haley, Masaad Ayoob, and many, many others that have unintentionally forgot more about firearms than a inexperienced critic of firearms. without giving into stereotypes, if i want information about a toyota prius, you can bet your ass im going to ask a "hoplophobe" ;) and not Larry Vickers.
As far as manufacturing waste, thats a entirely different story that you will be shocked to discover im probably on your side about. In fact, the current paradigm of destroying the living, breathing planet is suicidal in my opinion. Anyways, can of worms alert.
@Gelugon_baat i wasn't implying that it was "empirical", but my point is that if im going to obtain information about firearms defense, who do i talk to? jeff cooper or rosie o' donnell?
If a person has plenty of experience about firearms and is against firearms ownership, that person is still credible in my eyes and just as credible as someone who supports gun ownership. Yes, youre right. that sword cuts both ways. You can be anti-gun without a irrational fear of weapons. I have yet to run into such a person.
There ISNT any difference like you said between lovers of 1911s and Glocks :D that is just one example of a can of worms. Yes, there is a lot of ignorant bullshit over gun forums and youtube between different designs. Oh well. Human nature i guess.
I havent had any bad experiences with these companies and neither have other customers I know. As a consumer and business owner, i can understand your skepticism though. however, how evil and a company that produces flashlights really be? ;)
and how would commercial products that are not firearms from these companies carry more risk?
@Gelugon_baat its not a matter of being "bias" its credibility. A overwhelming number of people afraid of weapons have zero experience with them. That leads to a credibility problem. I also dont work for these companies. I have no horse in this race.
As far as benevolence, no human made machine or institution is perfect so ill agree with you there. you have to consider these companies, receiving off the shelf orders most often from special operations, are less inclined to cut corners because they will get binned if they did that. I personally own products made by these companies. Edifying Larue, I own a 5.56 OBR rifle. It is the cutting edge in small arms technology.
Im still not convinced their products have more of a risk than the rest. That distinction goes to the aforementioned companies from above, certainly when it comes to body counts.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat "Getting guns into the argument just distracts from this issue."
Color me shocked at that response, but i think weapons from the partner businesses ARE the issue or else there wouldnt be any bitching and moaning from Laura Parker.
I find it so horrifically ironic that so many people here are against EA's practice because apparently you can buy weapons over the internet (LMAO...actually you cant and ive refuted this multiple times) and endorsing real life companies is evil, but shooting digital hookers and foreigners with pixels of real life weaponry is somehow more socially acceptable and ok.
Hypocrisy. I doubt there will be a counter article. I just dont see how this is crossing a ethics boundary, but then again, im also not a hoplophobe and probably the only person with any real life experience with firearms.
This comment has been deleted
It is not a issue if you have a rational, objective approach to the situation. I disagree. Weapons do not have "more risks" than most other consumer products. That distinction goes to pharmaceuticals, cars, tobacco, alcohol, which all kill more people than what guns can even hope to scratch.
there are plenty of regulations on bladed weapons. Some states are obviously more liberal than others. Many are brutally unforgiving and arbitrary. Still, the tomahawk issue is utterly stupid. Im curious as to who has been murdered with a tomahawk most recently. I dont even carry a axe or tomahawk like bladed weapon in the woods because theyre good at chopping fingers :D
You're right on the EA hate bandwagon, which i vastly underestimated. Ive spent a good part of the day tumbling down the rabbit hole in order to understand some perspective on the EA monster. If somebody is pissed off at this company, I understand completely and am actually sympathetic.
Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. the problem with ethics is somebody telling me what they should be and perceiving me as "unethical". I dont have a problem with somebody being opposed to the partnerships, though ill be quick to point how my opinion that it is not "unethical" and fears are exaggerated.
Yeah EA has a PR to maintain. unfortunately, everybody is scared enough of the evil forged metal boogeyman because they hilariously believe there's not a need for them anymore. ah, how ignorance must be bliss!
@Gelugon_baat no. its not EA's partners' fault that they are selected by special operations soldiers predominantly.
I just dont see the issue. Maybe im not the only one that cannot see this giant evil conspiracy with EA and their partners.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat "Those risks being blown out of proportion won't seem so when people start dying though."
that is ridiculous. people ARE NOT DYING NOW because of this. that is what matters. it is blown out of proportion, plain and simple. hoplophobia is a funny thing. I can go on and on forever about "well my car is safe but it wont seem safe when i get into a accident". That is a perpetual circle of mental masturbation.
Wrecklessness wont go away 100% because humans are imperfect, though it can be reduced with proper education instead of the utterly asinine strategy of "just say no".
"That doesn't mean that the likes of Electronic Arts should just say "shit happens - not our problem" and then continue its "business partnerships". Sure, shit will always happen, but the onus is on Electronic Arts to know whether it could have done something about shit that happened - or not."
this is where i disagree and thank you for proving my point. everybody wants a scapegoat and there is nothing that gets more views than a evil EA conglomerate with real guns on their MOH site, that somehow led to a tragedy. Blame, blame, blame instead of trying the shooter and putting a fucking needle in his arm after hes tried by his peers (or life imprisonment...whatever).
dont give a cent to them. thats what a smart consumer does if its that much of a issue.
I wish a lot of things to. I wish all americans would actually get educated about things so that they can make responsible adult decisions rather than listening and regurgitating the same bullshit fed to them by "bigger good" chucklefucks. what is it with these control freaks? they think they're in a position to tell people what they "need" and "dont need".
@Gelugon_baat "If only the perpetrator is nailed, then there will always be the perception that someone else got away scot-free."
Thats one of the problems with american society today. we can either choose to continue such stupidity to nip it in the ass while we can. It is that simple.
why not? because 18 year olds dont typically drop thousands of dollars for those kind of weapons. It doesnt happen. and what do you mean misuse? starts shooting into the air from excitement? i think the whole risks are being blown way out of proportion.
@Gelugon_baat if a tragedy happened with a medal of honor branded weapon, i would blame the shooter instead of video games and the weapon. god forbid you actually hold people accountable now.
let me guess. hype and excitement can cause a eighteen year old to drop 2,200 on a labrue obr or a 50 caliber mcmillian, which is a sniping platform that can cost over 5,000 dollars including the optics. 50 caliber ammo is over 5 dollars a cartridge.
@Gelugon_baat 1.) No. A business has no obligation to listen to my protests or care. If EA diverted a portion of its funds to donate to the Brady Campaign, thats their business. I wont buy their products because Im a consumer.
2.) well good. At least youre not a hypocrite. The same cant be said for the others.
3.) No. A person that is willing to spend 2,200$ for a Larue OBR is not going to be a rash buyer giving into video game hype. Common sense. If a player wants to buy "operator classes" or mechanix gloves, then who cares.
Im still not convinced that this partnership could lead to any possible risk or danger.
@Gelugon_baat quite simply, no not "everyone" thinks this is morally wrong. But its sure fun to claim conspiracy and pounce on the EA sugar lump.
Im sure you protest grand turismo for promoting cars too. the producers are venturing outside their lane by promoting things other than their video game, things which are particularly dangerous if used irresponsibility.
@Gelugon_baat they're not trying to peddle anything! where do you guys come up with this stuff? LOL. There's nothing morally wrong about partnerships and that is how free enterprise works.
@Gelugon_baat im very curious. what exactly is wrong with what they're doing?
@Gelugon_baat ...and that is a new business practice??? LOL
Welcome to California, They have no lines of respect. EA, Dice, Danger close, Gamespot. Spend more money on bs then helping others.
Total slave to the system here. That, or you have some severe mental issues.
This comment has been deleted
@Gelugon_baat @Renoo27 There is no issue, the press release from EA reads: "...and donate 100% of the proceeds of their sales to the Navy SEAL Foundation, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation and other charities."
They weren't making anything extra on the side, no one was. That is called Distraction.