A new low for America/Obama

[n64kid]

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/10/15/gam ing-gets-political-obama-ads-appear-in-e a-games/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct /15/uselections2008-barackobama-technolo gy
http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-o bama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

Obamarama at a new low, or is it genius?
I think it's disgusting that the Obama campaign target specifically gamers who aren't tuned in to watch political commercials. How commercial oriented must America be for political ads to apepar in video games? To keep this thread from going off in some tangent, it's about whether you like this move by Obama, or if you think he went too far. I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

[Cornbucket]

At 10/16/08 03:49 AM, n64kid wrote: Obamarama at a new low, or is it genius?
I think it's disgusting that the Obama campaign target specifically gamers who aren't tuned in to watch political commercials.

Why do you think it's disgusting? Is putting advertisements in print disgusting? What about radio? The internet? Is television the only acceptable way to advertise?

How commercial oriented must America be for political ads to apepar in video games?

...Commercial-oriented? Isn't America all about capitalism anyway? How do you expect to sell a product -- in this case, a candidate -- if no one knows about? If increased advertising leads to increased consumer(/voter) response, then what reason is there NOT to pursue it?

To keep this thread from going off in some tangent, it's about whether you like this move by Obama, or if you think he went too far. I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

I think that candidates should either not be allowed to advertise AT ALL, or, should be allowed to advertise basically anywhere that any other private party would be allowed to advertise. I think this move shows that the Obama campaign is living in the modern world... not that he needed it, but this sortof makes McCain look like even MORE of an old fogey.

The only thing I might find unacceptable about it is if the ads were placed in some really fucked-up type of game. A fantasy street racing game with imaginary cars and zero gore doesn't concern me too much... but if Obama was on the billboards inside of Grand Theft Auto IV, THEN I would agree that it's a disgusting type of move. To me, that would be like putting ads in High Times or Penthouse or something. Those magazines aren't the best examples but I don't know of any magazines focused around stealing cars, killing people, and having sex with prostitutes.

[BetaOrionis]

If you don't like ads, perhaps you should stick to playing N64.

Advertisers will eventually infiltrate everything. Let me make that a bit more clear. ADVERTISERS WILL EVENTUALLY INFILTRATE EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.

Some people currently get paid to wrap their cars in enormous stickers advertising soap and other shit. Ads are popping up over urinals, so you get get advertised to while you pee. People can now get tattoos of their favorite brands, and some of these tattoos come with embedded scannable bar codes that give discounts at said brands stores.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Not really. As soon as we stop being so easy to influence, advertising will be less effective, and will stop happening. Will we ever be smart enough for that? No.

Oh well, I guess you'll just have to tolerate ads in your stupid fucking video games. You poor kid.

[Cornbucket]

At 10/16/08 04:49 AM, BetaOrionis wrote: Ads are popping up over urinals, so you get get advertised to while you pee.

When I started seeing those pop up in bars years back all I could think was "damn I wish I had thought of that."

[ForkRobotik]

Sounds to me like the only reason he's pissed about this is because they're " evil obama" ads.

[shini-gami]

At 10/16/08 06:46 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Sounds to me like the only reason he's pissed about this is because they're " evil obama" ads.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

products need to be promoted.

ads promote products.

ads are needed.

simple as that

[bcdemon]

I think it's genius. What better way to bring politics to a group that doesn't really care much about it.

Hmm, it only appears when your on XBOX Live, and if you live in one of the 10 "battleground states".
Still a cool idea.

[shini-gami]

At 10/16/08 07:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: I think it's genius. What better way to bring politics to a group that doesn't really care much about it.

Hmm, it only appears when your on XBOX Live, and if you live in one of the 10 "battleground states".
Still a cool idea.

haha ur right, but maybe they went for the ''debate afterwards'' effect because look at all of us talking about obama now!!111!one!

[MultiCanimefan]

At 10/16/08 03:49 AM, n64kid wrote:

I think it's disgusting that the Obama campaign target specifically gamers who aren't tuned in to watch political commercials.

They SHOULD be tuned in if they care about their country. It's never too late to understand and participate in the process that shapes the country.

How commercial oriented must America be for political ads to apepar in video games?

With American culture, it's expected.

To keep this thread from going off in some tangent, it's about whether you like this move by Obama, or if you think he went too far.

I'm neutral.

I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

It IS the American culture, to commercialize anything and everything because it equals profit.

[kraor024]

When I heard about it I thought it was genius what better way to target younger people who are less likely to vote.
So instead of just trying to make people change thier minds you also make people choose to participate (in your favor).

If you hate advertising being everywhere, well welcome to capitalism,nothing is sacred and you have to convince idiots to part with their money somehow.

[KeithHybrid]

At 10/16/08 03:49 AM, n64kid wrote: I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

I think America is not the place for you. This is the norm in America, and in a few decades time, advertisers will send us commericals telepathically.

Don't like it? gb2/china/

[CaiWengi]

Its just like any sort of advertisement. I see no difference. Targeting a specific age group? So what.

[Saruman200]

At 10/16/08 03:49 AM, n64kid wrote: http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/10/15/gam ing-gets-political-obama-ads-appear-in-e a-games/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct /15/uselections2008-barackobama-technolo gy
http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-o bama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

Obamarama at a new low, or is it genius?

Well, I tend to think it's a good idea. Who plays video games? Young people. Who doesn't vote? Young people. How do you get these young people to vote? Get them interested in the politcal process, and I don't see how ads in a video games are any worse than other forms of ads.

I think it's disgusting that the Obama campaign target specifically gamers who aren't tuned in to watch political commercials.

Well, as I mentioned, gamers are probably one of worst demographics when it comes to voting, so why not?

How commercial oriented must America be for political ads to apepar in video games?

Where have you been the last 20 years? America is pretty fucking commercial oriented.

To keep this thread from going off in some tangent, it's about whether you like this move by Obama, or if you think he went too far. I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

I don't see the issue here. Capitalism's a bitch. If this is a blow to American culture, then American culture has already been beat to death over the last 10-20 years.

[SirLebowski]

I think it was the game developers' idea to put the Obama ad in the game. Not America's nor Obama's.

[n64kid]

At 10/16/08 04:10 AM, Cornbucket wrote:

Why do you think it's disgusting? Is putting advertisements in print disgusting? What about radio? The internet? Is television the only acceptable way to advertise?

Paying 50 bucks for a game and 5 bucks a month to play online to see political ads is disgusting. Video games are an escape from reality. The fact that Obama specifically targets the apathetic voters to vote just because he thinks they would vote for him is what's sick.

It's like the South Park episode "Douche and Turd", Kyle cares so much about Stan voting, not because Stan's making a choice on who he believes in, but that Stan's vote would probably be a vote for Kyle's candidate.

...Commercial-oriented? Isn't America all about capitalism anyway? How do you expect to sell a product -- in this case, a candidate -- if no one knows about? If increased advertising leads to increased consumer(/voter) response, then what reason is there NOT to pursue it?

Capitalism is where the private sector own the means of production. This is a case of a quasi-socialist candidate advertising in similar attempts to what Kyle did in that episode.

I think that candidates should either not be allowed to advertise AT ALL, or, should be allowed to advertise basically anywhere that any other private party would be allowed to advertise. I think this move shows that the Obama campaign is living in the modern world... not that he needed it, but this sortof makes McCain look like even MORE of an old fogey.

Obama is advertising in VIDEO GAMES.... it's very low to say the least. I don't see political ads at stadiums during sporting events because it's a conflict of interest. No one sees such in video games?

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

At 10/16/08 06:46 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Sounds to me like the only reason he's pissed about this is because they're " evil obama" ads.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

Actually, we have two losers. I would be appalled even more so had it been McCain.

Why? I have lower expectations of the democratic party. Afterall, on my campus, non-partisan registration comes with a free Obama button.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 10/16/08 02:45 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 10/16/08 04:10 AM, Cornbucket wrote:

Paying 50 bucks for a game and 5 bucks a month to play online to see political ads is disgusting. Video games are an escape from reality.

You can make the same argument for just about any medium that people advertise in. Do you think people watching Star Trek want to see political ads? Also, what is this "escape from reality" nonsense, anyway? If your life is so bad that you can't take seeing a political ad in a video game, then I think you should put down the controller, sell the xbox on ebay, and take that money and go to a therapist.

Furthermore, video games are a capitalist enterprise. It costs a great deal of money to make these games, and it costs even mores when you have to maintain a server farm. If they didn't put in adversing, they'd probably charge you more for the game. If you don't like it, stop complaining here and write Microsoft with your complaints. If enough people care, then they won't do it in the future.

The fact that Obama specifically targets the apathetic voters to vote just because he thinks they would vote for him is what's sick.

A candidate trying to get people to vote for is sick?

It's like the South Park episode "Douche and Turd", Kyle cares so much about Stan voting, not because Stan's making a choice on who he believes in, but that Stan's vote would probably be a vote for Kyle's candidate.

Welcome to politics.

Capitalism is where the private sector own the means of production. This is a case of a quasi-socialist candidate advertising in similar attempts to what Kyle did in that episode.

Honestly, is it Obama's responsibility to make sure that those who are voting for him are doing so for the right reasons, or is it, gasp, the voter's responsbility? If you answer the former, then there is no basis for us to be a democracy as voting would therefore be meaningless.

Obama is advertising in VIDEO GAMES.... it's very low to say the least. I don't see political ads at stadiums during sporting events because it's a conflict of interest. No one sees such in video games?

Where is the conflict of interest? Video games have no moral obligation. They aren't providing a critical service, nor are they in a position to have an impact on people's lives. There only interest is to make money, and this is well in line with those interests.

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

At 10/16/08 06:46 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Sounds to me like the only reason he's pissed about this is because they're " evil obama" ads.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

Actually, we have two losers. I would be appalled even more so had it been McCain.

Why? I have lower expectations of the democratic party. Afterall, on my campus, non-partisan registration comes with a free Obama button.

Which has what to do with the Democratic party itself? If you have an issue with that behavior, you should go to whoever was running the drive and complain. It was the people who ran the drive who allowed it. If those people had been Republicans, they would have given out McCain buttons, so stop with the ludicrous generalizations here.

Overall, grow up. Your precious video games are entertainment, nothing more, and they owe you no form of moral obligation. Within the next year, I'm going to set up a site with comics, videos, and yes, flash games, and they will have advertisements in them to pay for the cost of the site. If you do not like this, please give me your ip address now so I can ban it in advance.

[aninjaman]

Heres a question n64kid. If the candidate you supported was being advertised would you be as angry?
Answer honestly.

[SouthAsian]

I like how they're opening new fronts to capitalise or in this case advertise choices of Candidate.

[Icetank]

Its not that bad...Its just advertising in games...Its done on websites so why not actually in the game
And it cant be used in much without completely destroying the atmosphere
In a racing game,sure I'd like to see a few ads
In a shoot em up game set up in ww2 I would not
So it cant even be used in much so who really cares

[Elfer]

At 10/16/08 02:45 PM, n64kid wrote: Paying 50 bucks for a game and 5 bucks a month to play online to see political ads is disgusting.

If it's so disgusting, just refuse to buy games that feature advertising. Maybe if people actually backlashed against game companies that used in-game monetization, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

[BrianEtrius]

Okay then, let's, for the hell of it, take away all advertisement in video games.

Tell me n64kid, do you like sports games?

Imagine playing them with random fictional people with fictional teams. Why? Because sports leagues sign contracts with the video game industry to ADVERTISE their teams. It's for them to make more money.

[KidneyThief]

Wow, that is a genious move. Ingenious actually.Targeting a large group that most likely contains a good number of individuals that are not active in politics.

[n64kid]

At 10/16/08 03:34 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

You can make the same argument for just about any medium that people advertise in. Do you think people watching Star Trek want to see political ads? Also, what is this "escape from reality" nonsense, anyway? If your life is so bad that you can't take seeing a political ad in a video game, then I think you should put down the controller, sell the xbox on ebay, and take that money and go to a therapist.

Playing FIFA 09 online and seeing Obama's face in a stadium in Barcelona (FC Barcelona fan) ruins the integrity of the game and his character. Trying to get people when they least expect it is what the problem here, and this is a much larger step than seeing commercials on broadcast TV. HBO doesn't have commercials, there's a premium to avoid them. Arclight cinema doesn't have commercials, because there's a premium. If it was PS3 I wouldn't mind since online is free, but XBOX live is 5 bucks a month, and I expect less ads with for this premium.

Furthermore, video games are a capitalist enterprise. It costs a great deal of money to make these games, and it costs even mores when you have to maintain a server farm. If they didn't put in adversing, they'd probably charge you more for the game. If you don't like it, stop complaining here and write Microsoft with your complaints. If enough people care, then they won't do it in the future.

I have no problem with Adidas or nike advertising, as they already do. Political ads are a different thing, and whether it's McCain, Obama, or anyone else, I'd say it's unethical to advertise politics in a video game.

A candidate trying to get people to vote for is sick?

Like what Kyle did in my example, yes.

Honestly, is it Obama's responsibility to make sure that those who are voting for him are doing so for the right reasons, or is it, gasp, the voter's responsbility? If you answer the former, then there is no basis for us to be a democracy as voting would therefore be meaningless.

The less responsible voters, from what I see on this forum, vote Obama. Appealing to these people for false votes is entirely unethical.

Where is the conflict of interest? Video games have no moral obligation. They aren't providing a critical service, nor are they in a position to have an impact on people's lives. There only interest is to make money, and this is well in line with those interests.

Politics -in- video games. Video games are a withdrawal from mainstream society because I get to shoot people in COD4 and kick ass in FIFA and Madden. Something I could not do in real life (I'm very good at baseball though). The last thing I want is something relevant on my screen, and I'm not the only gamer who feels this way.

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

Which has what to do with the Democratic party itself?

Ethics, the democratic party has none.

If you have an issue with that behavior, you should go to whoever was running the drive and complain.

Which I have, and I'm alerting NG of this too. I have pms so there are people on my side.

It was the people who ran the drive who allowed it. If those people had been Republicans, they would have given out McCain buttons, so stop with the ludicrous generalizations here.

We have republican volunteers who do their job in getting people registered. We have democrats who give out free Obama buttons. Which one's more ethical of the two?

Overall, grow up. Your precious video games are entertainment, nothing more, and they owe you no form of moral obligation.

They owe me 50 bucks/game plus 5 bucks a month of moral obligation. I also happen to be a shareholder of Microsoft, so the obligation only escalates.

Within the next year, I'm going to set up a site with comics, videos, and yes, flash games, and they will have advertisements in them to pay for the cost of the site. If you do not like this, please give me your ip address now so I can ban it in advance.

What is it with morons who can't see the difference between ads on a website and ads on a paid service with no expectation of having political ads. Besides, I have a dyanmic IP, wouldn't be upset if you had ads on your website, and would never visit it anyways.

At 10/16/08 03:36 PM, aninjaman wrote: Heres a question n64kid. If the candidate you supported was being advertised would you be as angry?
Answer honestly.

Honestly, as I've said before, and will most likely have to state again, I WOULD BE FAR MORE UPSET IF MCCAIN DID IT. Leave political ads where they should be, out of video games.

[Musician]

Advertising your campaign isn't unethical. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama, but this isn't one of them. I think it's time you just admit that you were wrong.

[n64kid]

At 10/16/08 08:24 PM, Musician wrote: Advertising your campaign isn't unethical. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama, but this isn't one of them. I think it's time you just admit that you were wrong.

In general, advertising is in no way shape or form unethical. In certain mediums, it is. Video games are one of them. If McCain did the same thing, I would have made a post similar to this, but with more kick. This has little to do with Obama and more to do with policital ads in video games. Obama just started this phenomenon. Seeing how you can't add anything to what's been said, I think you should admit that I'm right.

[SolInvictus]

adds are commonplace in video games, and with a growing adult-gamer market its a logical step.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 10/16/08 08:20 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 10/16/08 03:34 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Playing FIFA 09 online and seeing Obama's face in a stadium in Barcelona (FC Barcelona fan) ruins the integrity of the game and his character. Trying to get people when they least expect it is what the problem here, and this is a much larger step than seeing commercials on broadcast TV. HBO doesn't have commercials, there's a premium to avoid them. Arclight cinema doesn't have commercials, because there's a premium. If it was PS3 I wouldn't mind since online is free, but XBOX live is 5 bucks a month, and I expect less ads with for this premium.

Then you should be bitching about advertising in general, not just Obama. You are overreacting in the extreme here, though, to political advertising.

I have no problem with Adidas or nike advertising, as they already do. Political ads are a different thing, and whether it's McCain, Obama, or anyone else, I'd say it's unethical to advertise politics in a video game.

You have not established that in the slightest. It's entertainment. It has no obligation to you. If you don't like the fact that they are advertising, complain to Microsoft. It's just a video game. Get over it.

A candidate trying to get people to vote for is sick?

Like what Kyle did in my example, yes.

Again, you are just now realizing this? Welcome to politics!

The less responsible voters, from what I see on this forum, vote Obama. Appealing to these people for false votes is entirely unethical.

It's called appealing to voters, period. If you want to truly have a democracy, you have to accept the fact that people you don't like are going to vote. Do you think I'm happy about the fact that high school dropouts will voting in this election. Of course not, but if you want a democracy, then you must accept the fact that these people are going to vote, and both candidates are going to go for those voters. If Obama doesn't, then McCain will. In the end, the voting machines don't weigh votes based on the qualifications of the voter.

Politics -in- video games. Video games are a withdrawal from mainstream society because I get to shoot people in COD4 and kick ass in FIFA and Madden. Something I could not do in real life (I'm very good at baseball though). The last thing I want is something relevant on my screen, and I'm not the only gamer who feels this way.

. Seriously, I can't stand fan boys of any stripe. I'm into anime, but I can't stand the people who eat, breath, and sleep the stuff. I'm going to say this again: Video games are entertainment. The fact that you take them so seriously does not suddenly make your desires a moral crusade. They are entertainment. If you do not like political ads in games, and I'll even admit I don't like them either, then don't buy games that do that. It's that simple. It does not make a candidate disgusting for taking advantage of it. If Obama didn't, McCain might have.

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

Which has what to do with the Democratic party itself?

Ethics, the democratic party has none.

Ah, yes, because this type of bullshit is helping the country so much right now. Grow the fuck up. There are ethical and unethical members of both parties. Stick to your damned video games.

If you have an issue with that behavior, you should go to whoever was running the drive and complain.

Which I have, and I'm alerting NG of this too. I have pms so there are people on my side.

That proves absolutely nothing. Back in 2003, over 80% of the population believed Saddam was apart of the 9/11 attacks. This has been discredited. Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

It was the people who ran the drive who allowed it. If those people had been Republicans, they would have given out McCain buttons, so stop with the ludicrous generalizations here.

We have republican volunteers who do their job in getting people registered. We have democrats who give out free Obama buttons. Which one's more ethical of the two?

The volunteers who didn't give out buttons, obviously, but your point is a mere strawman. You are trying to argue that the actions of a few Democrats can automatically be generalized to the Democratic party as whole. My point still stands. If the individuals who were handing out the buttons were Republican, they would have been handing out McCain buttons. The point is that it is the individuals who are unethical, and that this has nothing to do with their party affiliation. I've met both Republicans and Democrats who were highly ethical and who I respect. You are the one that is trying to generalize because you don't like Democrats.

Please, while in college take a course on logic so you stop committing these ridiculous fallacies.

They owe me 50 bucks/game plus 5 bucks a month of moral obligation. I also happen to be a shareholder of Microsoft, so the obligation only escalates.

Again, your whims do not equal moral obligation. You pay for access to their service to play games. They provide you with those games. If they do not like it, the only thing stopping you from playing is your need for escapism. That is not Microsoft's job to provide, and some would even argue that encouraging such behavior could be dangerous in extreme cases. Now, if you don't like it, stop playing or complain to MS. Their doing something you don't like does not constitute a breach of moral obligation. You paid for access to a video game and network to play it on, and they provided it.

Within the next year, I'm going to set up a site with comics, videos, and yes, flash games, and they will have advertisements in them to pay for the cost of the site. If you do not like this, please give me your ip address now so I can ban it in advance.

What is it with morons who can't see the difference between ads on a website and ads on a paid service with no expectation of having political ads. Besides, I have a dyanmic IP, wouldn't be upset if you had ads on your website, and would never visit it anyways.

What is it with morons who can't separate their entertainment and their wants from needs and moral obligations. It's fucking entertainment. The fact that it is your opiate of choice does not make Microsoft or Obama morally obligated to keep political ads out of it. If you don't like it, I can respect that. I don't like the idea either. What I can stand are entitled brats who can't take separate their preferences from moral principles.

[n64kid]

At 10/16/08 09:04 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Then you should be bitching about advertising in general

I'm bitching about political ads in video games, and not just Obama.

You have not established that in the slightest. It's entertainment. It has no obligation to you. If you don't like the fact that they are advertising, complain to Microsoft. It's just a video game. Get over it.

Premiums mean I see less ads, it's common business practice. Likewise I complained to Microsoft and EA games before making this thread.

Again, you are just now realizing this? Welcome to politics!

That's not the point. It's unethical in a new way. This is similar unethical behavior that's been around, yes, but in a new medium. One that I feel should not cater to politics.

It's called appealing to voters, period. If you want to truly have a democracy, you have to accept the fact that people you don't like are going to vote. Do you think I'm happy about the fact that high school dropouts will voting in this election. Of course not, but if you want a democracy, then you must accept the fact that these people are going to vote, and both candidates are going to go for those voters. If Obama doesn't, then McCain will. In the end, the voting machines don't weigh votes based on the qualifications of the voter.

We have a representative democracy, and not a direct one for this very reason. But the point is that politics should stay out of video games. I've had no problem with Nike and Adidas in my games, but I have one with Obama, and would have one with McCain or Barr, for that matter.

. Seriously, I can't stand fan boys of any stripe. I'm into anime, but I can't stand the people who eat, breath, and sleep the stuff. I'm going to say this again: Video games are entertainment. The fact that you take them so seriously does not suddenly make your desires a moral crusade.

Do you read what I say? I don't see them as reality, I don't take them seriously. It's the inconsistency of reality with video games that gets to me. Keep political ads out of FIFA is all I'm saying.

If you do not like political ads in games, and I'll even admit I don't like them either, then don't buy games that do that. It's that simple.

Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

Ah, yes, because this type of bullshit is helping the country so much right now. Grow the fuck up. There are ethical and unethical members of both parties. Stick to your damned video games.

I've never seen a non partisan registration giving out republican swag. Perhaps you are out of touch with how biased everything is towards liberalism?

That proves absolutely nothing. Back in 2003, over 80% of the population believed Saddam was apart of the 9/11 attacks. This has been discredited. Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not making an assumption other than I have people on my side. Which having pms saying they are on my side proves that fact. I never claimed a majority, so maybe you need lessons in logic?

The volunteers who didn't give out buttons, obviously, but your point is a mere strawman. You are trying to argue that the actions of a few Democrats can automatically be generalized to the Democratic party as whole. My point still stands. If the individuals who were handing out the buttons were Republican, they would have been handing out McCain buttons. The point is that it is the individuals who are unethical, and that this has nothing to do with their party affiliation. I've met both Republicans and Democrats who were highly ethical and who I respect. You are the one that is trying to generalize because you don't like Democrats.

1) I don't like republicans in general much either.
2) It is the individual, yes, but I've seen more "unfavorable" individuals lean towards the democratic party. The problem is that Wisconsin allows non partisan voting in primaries, and when non partisan registrations give out buttons/bumperstickers/pins/pens etc saying Unite the Country: Obama/Biden.
3) I'd have a problem if any candidate advertised on video games.

Please, while in college take a course on logic so you stop committing these ridiculous fallacies.

It's not logic, therefore, they can't be logical fallacies. It's straight anecdotal evidence. Please, take a reading comprehension class, then take another class on logic to learn what you're talking about.

Again, your whims do not equal moral obligation.

As an owner, they do have obligations. Learn about the real world, will ya?

You pay for access to their service to play games. They provide you with those games. If they do not like it, the only thing stopping you from playing is your need for escapism. That is not Microsoft's job to provide, and some would even argue that encouraging such behavior could be dangerous in extreme cases. Now, if you don't like it, stop playing or complain to MS.

Can you read? I already did

Their doing something you don't like does not constitute a breach of moral obligation. You paid for access to a video game and network to play it on, and they provided it.

I paid a premium which Microsoft said that they would not seek aggressive advertising behavior on, but this is on EA games, and not as much microsoft. I complained to both.

What is it with morons who can't separate their entertainment and their wants from needs and moral obligations. It's fucking entertainment. The fact that it is your opiate of choice does not make Microsoft or Obama morally obligated to keep political ads out of it. If you don't like it, I can respect that. I don't like the idea either. What I can stand are entitled brats who can't take separate their preferences from moral principles.

Uhmm...... let's highlight what you said in the paragraph above. You respect my humble opinion. You say you don't like the idea of political ads in video games either.

I'm saying this twice in the same post
Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.

[Saruman200]

At 10/16/08 09:36 PM, n64kid wrote:
That's not the point. It's unethical in a new way. This is similar unethical behavior that's been around, yes, but in a new medium. One that I feel should not cater to politics.

Why so? Why is advertising in video games any worse than advertising in any other medium?

We have a representative democracy, and not a direct one for this very reason. But the point is that politics should stay out of video games. I've had no problem with Nike and Adidas in my games, but I have one with Obama, and would have one with McCain or Barr, for that matter.

I really would prefer politcs stayed out of video games as well. A year ago or so, I was playing World of Warcraft, and some people organized some Ron Paul Rally on the server. I got pissed, because all these people all gathered in one place, creating lag and crashing the server every hour or so. But they have that right. Just like Obama has the right to campaign in video games, as do McCain and Barr. However, there's a difference between my example and the topic at hand, because in my WoW example, it was actually damaging to my play experience. Here, it's just cosmetics, the game isn't ruined cause there's a sign that says "Obama". I hate the annoying TV poltical ads too, but we live with them. How is this any different?

Do you read what I say? I don't see them as reality, I don't take them seriously. It's the inconsistency of reality with video games that gets to me. Keep political ads out of FIFA is all I'm saying.

Why? There all sorts of ads at sports events, all over the sidelines, why is a poltical one so different? And in the case we are discussing, there are politcal ads on billboards all over the place, so this really doesn't hurt the authenticity.

Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.

Because of a billboard in the game? Explain how this decreased the quality of gameplay at all, please?

I've never seen a non partisan registration giving out republican swag. Perhaps you are out of touch with how biased everything is towards liberalism?

Prove it. Prove there is a bias.

1) I don't like republicans in general much either.
2) It is the individual, yes, but I've seen more "unfavorable" individuals lean towards the democratic party. The problem is that Wisconsin allows non partisan voting in primaries, and when non partisan registrations give out buttons/bumperstickers/pins/pens etc saying Unite the Country: Obama/Biden.

Again, prove it. Just because those individuals are bad, doesn't mean all bad inviduals are democrats. Um...Karl Rove anyone? What about keeping minority voters at home in Florida during the 2000 election, simply because there name sounded similar to felon's names? Sounds pretty unsavory to me...

3) I'd have a problem if any candidate advertised on video games.

Okay, but I wonder, if it was a McCain or Barr ad, would you have got so outraged. You may still have not liked it, but considering the whole "Obamarama" or whatever you mentioned, I assume you were worried about the whole "Obama is developing so much popularity he is a dictator OMG" craze. But whatever, maybe I'm just halluncinating... That crap is so popular nowadays, I get suspicious :P

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 10/16/08 09:36 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 10/16/08 09:04 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

You have not established that in the slightest. It's entertainment. It has no obligation to you. If you don't like the fact that they are advertising, complain to Microsoft. It's just a video game. Get over it.

Premiums mean I see less ads, it's common business practice. Likewise I complained to Microsoft and EA games before making this thread.

Hey, I'm not saying you shouldn't expect that. My problem is that you seem to be taking this way to seriously, though.

Again, you are just now realizing this? Welcome to politics!

That's not the point. It's unethical in a new way. This is similar unethical behavior that's been around, yes, but in a new medium. One that I feel should not cater to politics.

Why? What separates video games? If you could establish why this is such a big deal, I'd be more inclined to agree.

We have a representative democracy, and not a direct one for this very reason. But the point is that politics should stay out of video games. I've had no problem with Nike and Adidas in my games, but I have one with Obama, and would have one with McCain or Barr, for that matter.

Exactly, which negates a lot of your outrage. Furthermore, I think the reason Obama chose games is that he appeals more to younger voters. He's banking on getting more younger voters.

. Seriously, I can't stand fan boys of any stripe. I'm into anime, but I can't stand the people who eat, breath, and sleep the stuff. I'm going to say this again: Video games are entertainment. The fact that you take them so seriously does not suddenly make your desires a moral crusade.

Do you read what I say? I don't see them as reality, I don't take them seriously. It's the inconsistency of reality with video games that gets to me. Keep political ads out of FIFA is all I'm saying.

It's not that you said it. I'm not disagreeing with you there, but I honestly think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. I don't think Obama was disgusting for this, though. I think it may be more a matter of degree on our disagreement than anything else.

If you do not like political ads in games, and I'll even admit I don't like them either, then don't buy games that do that. It's that simple.

Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.

Just don't buy Midway. Mortal Kombat needs to die already :D.

At 10/16/08 07:16 AM, shini-gami wrote:

Ah, yes, because this type of bullshit is helping the country so much right now. Grow the fuck up. There are ethical and unethical members of both parties. Stick to your damned video games.

I've never seen a non partisan registration giving out republican swag. Perhaps you are out of touch with how biased everything is towards liberalism?

That again was not my point. I could go on and list some of the offensive things that the young Republicans club did while I was at Rutgers, including harassing students through their publications. Both parties have their good and their bad. I don't get why you seem to hate Democrats so much. This country has taken a very unhealthy turn. The only way we are going to get out of it is to stop fighting over points of ideaology and start arguing facts again.

It's not a logical fallacy as I'm not making an assumption other than I have people on my side. Which having pms saying they are on my side proves that fact. I never claimed a majority, so maybe you need lessons in logic?

The point is that people supporting your cause has no bearing on whether or not you are correct. That is what you were attempting to assert, and it is a logical fallacy.
::

Please, while in college take a course on logic so you stop committing these ridiculous fallacies.

It's not logic, therefore, they can't be logical fallacies. It's straight anecdotal evidence. Please, take a reading comprehension class, then take another class on logic to learn what you're talking about.

No, your 'evidence' was an objection to my claim that the individual in question would have handed out McCain/Palin buttons had they been Republican. You tried to claim that the behavior of this group of people could be extrapolated to all Democrats.

Like it or not, you were presenting an argument of the following form:
If there exists an individual who is a democrat who behaves unethically, then all democrats behave unethically. Even if you were only using it as an example, that was the argument you were trying to make with it. Image substituting Black people for democrat and see how ridiculous it sounds.

Again, your whims do not equal moral obligation.

As an owner, they do have obligations. Learn about the real world, will ya?

Moral obligation does not equal obligation. They have an obligation to provide you with a video game, and they met that obligation. There duties to provide a good experience are rooted mostly in utilitarian need to keep customers. Pleasing their customers every wish is not a moral obligation. They have a pragmatic obligation to do so if they want to keep selling their products. Doing something like advertising in games, though, is a breach of this pragmatic obligation. They have not broken any moral precepts, though, by slightly lowering your enjoyability.

Their doing something you don't like does not constitute a breach of moral obligation. You paid for access to a video game and network to play it on, and they provided it.

I paid a premium which Microsoft said that they would not seek aggressive advertising behavior on, but this is on EA games, and not as much microsoft. I complained to both.

Where did they say this? Is this part of their advertising, or did you assume it? If they did say it, then they lied and did break a moral obligation. On the other hand, if they never explicitly said it, then they did not break a moral obligation. You are unhappy with the service, and you canceled. That should be the end of it.

Uhmm...... let's highlight what you said in the paragraph above. You respect my humble opinion. You say you don't like the idea of political ads in video games either.

What I don't respect is your outrage over this tempest in teapot. You are behaving as though by lowering your enjoyment of the game, that they have broken a moral obligation to you. They have not. It is this confusion of a companies pragmatic need to maintain customer satisfaction with a sense of moral entitlement that I take offense to.

I'm saying this twice in the same post
Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.