Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimnos
I understand why they did it. They are a business and they can't go pissing off consumers to the point of losing sales.
|
Then why did they do it in the first place? You can't tell me that there is no one at the publisher or the dev who understood that there might be some people offended that they used "Taliban" in their game.
Quote:
|
If you were going to buy the game with the Taliban in it, you will still probably buy the game without it. By keeping them in they would be cutting out sales for all the kids whos parents give a crap about this kind of thing.
|
Parents can't even be bothered to check the warning label on a game to see if it has lots of violence. What are the chances that they'll know that some of the enemies in a multiplayer game are called "Taliban"?
What I hate about this whole scenario is that it's making me want to defend what was so clearly a publicity stunt on the part of EA. Just as "No Russian" garnered tons of publicity for MW2 and "Bad Babysitter" garnered tons of publicity for Dante's Inferno, calling their multiplayer skins "Taliban" has generated new interest in MoH.
I'm worried about the same thing that Phoenix mentioned: that this stupid stunt and the retraction that followed will embolden all the special interest groups out there with the message that if they whine hard enough and loud enough, they too can have their will imposed on the industry.
Thanks a lot, EA, you sacks of shit.
And yes, I know MW2 is Activision, not EA.
Hybrid Mode
