backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Sep 7 at 12:00 AM


MOH banned from sale on base PXs  (Source: Kotaku)
Multiplayer Taliban characters are the cause of the ban

Video games are a huge business and one of the most popular genres in the market are first person shooters. These games generate billions of dollars each year for the video game industry and have sparked harsh criticism at times because of the violent content of the games.

The latest game to come under fire is the upcoming shooter from EA called
Medal of Honor. Surprisingly, the game hasn't come under fire from the typical groups that oppose violent video games, but the U.S. military. 

Kotaku reports that the Army and Air Force Exchange Services has confirmed to it that they have demanded that the upcoming Medal of Honor game to be pulled from the 49 different GameStop locations that are located on army bases within America. The ban also extends to all stores selling the game on military Post Exchanges [PXs] globally. The reason the game has been withdrawn from PX shelves is that the multiplayer aspect of the game allow players to play as Taliban fighters.

An email from GameStop
Kotaku received states:

GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores... As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base. GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavor and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter.

Apparently, the game is not banned from play by military personnel and is not banned from the base altogether; the game simply isn’t allowed to be sold on base. Military personnel can buy it off base and play it at the base. There has been no official comment by EA on the issue so far.

Another first person shooter franchise set to get a new installment soon is Call of Duty with Activision putting the largest marketing campaign it has ever undertaken behind the new title in the franchise called Black Ops.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/3/2010 2:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting. I'm not a soldier so I don't know the psychology behind that. I assume the commanders that made the decision to pull the game from the PX, etc., do know the psychology.

My speculation was more towards the Taliban -- and other "insurgent" terrorist bastards (just so there's no doubt 8) -- being able to use this as PR. It seems to me the whole muslim thing has victimhood down pat. Resistance to building a mosque ... "we're the victim". Resistance to building nukes ... "we're the victim". I exaggerate, sure, but you the point is still perfectly valid.

I wouldn't want to let the enemy have even a possibility of a PR victory. Of course, the game is still allowed to be played. So perhaps that is not it. Perhaps, the military commanders talked with EA about aspects of the game and EA told them to stuff it. Hence the ban.


RE: So....
By Targon on 9/4/2010 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 1
There is a difference between playing a game with the enemy being the enemy, and playing the enemy and attacking the US troops. This is the primary issue here, and I find it amazing that more people just don't seem to understand it.

So, we have OUR people, fighting because our government demands it of them, not because they necessarily want to be over there. Now, you put a game out there where people can play the game with the focus being to kill American troops. That is pretty messed up if you ask me.

Red vs. Blue team, that's fine, but you have the current ENEMY combatants as the ones you can control to attack the "good guys", and you open up a lot of potential issues, including encouraging those who are already anti-American to play a game where THEIR goal is to kill Americans as the primary part of gameplay.

EA execs should get their asses kicked for not thinking about this!


RE: So....
By ekv on 9/4/2010 9:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty much agree with you. I think EA is for the most part playing up the controversy for the sake of publicity.

Having said that, the issue ought to be given some thought and discussion is appropriate. A game that does portray enemy tactics would prove useful to our troops. Even a current enemy. As long as the enemy is portrayed relatively accurately and as long as our tactics are not compromised. That last part is violated by the likes of the NY Times way too often.

The point of allowing this would be so that "civilians" could get a somewhat realistic taste, as it were, of what our troops are up against. I am still concerned, however, about the Taliban being able to point at product X and claim the sanctity of victimhood.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki