EA: we are only getting votes beause people are homophobes
Cry. Don't spend the money on it then. Problem solved. Go back to the kiddie section.
"dimit canes bellum."
origin id: xiOdy steam: celtekk
No, what I'm saying is that they conveniently had this campaign set up right after winning the poll last year.
Prove this was planned before the poll, as you claim.
That said, those gay relationships people supposedly were protesting against (haven't seen any evidence for this) are not even in the game to this day.
They will be available tomorrow, for people willing to pay $20 extra.
Which makes this petition all the more dubious.
Where did I suggest they ONLY use it as shield?
They do use it as a shield, which brings their entire motivation for doing it into question.
If you are referring to this post:
Read it again, because I was talking about the petition there.
First link is indeed them doing something: supporting an act that dozens of other companies did as well.
Second link is purely advertising, just reading the contents makes this obvious:
Join Electronic Arts, a leading creator and advocate for LGBT issues in entertainment and media, as we host a half-day of open dialogue and panel discussions covering:
The origin of homophobia in games;
The development of authentic LGBT characters and scenarios;
The difference between exclusive and inclusive language;
Creating and promoting inclusive work environments for LGBT employees in the digital entertainment industry.
What the hell is "homophobia in games"?
Someone calling someone else a "******"? Because that has nothing to do with homophobia.
You don't honestly think that is anything but an advertisement to increase their reputation, right?
Hosting a press conference to talk about something that is something that is a non-issue (at least it is over here in Europe, can't judge how it is in US) doesn't actually do anything either, since they only invite people who are pro.
It would be the equivalent of posting on Reddit about how cool the big bang theory is: they'll all agree anyway and there won't be any meaningful debate.
CELTEKK posted...I would address more of your post but I'm running out of room, and frankly I do not want to get into an argument with either you or Sedated on the boards, where more constructive debate can be had.
-_- Seems no one on this board can tell the difference between trolling and flaming. You just said that he didn't want to have a debate but wanted to have a long debate with Sedated. Then when others say others are trolling they aren't, they are flaming! Trolling means to try to piss someone off and make them say curse words and bad language. When every someone says another person is trolling', it's flaming. They weren't intending to make someone mad, just debating on another's opinion or if the game is in good state, or if ea is good or bad,etc. Flaming means to have like a long, harsh, battle/debate or something which is useless at this point.
U can have the right to judge someone, even critique heavily. As long as it is nessasary and not exaggerated to make someone mad. Sorta like indirect trolling
Youtube Channel at youtube.com/user/jaijasty Gamefaqs jaijasty2 ,Chatango: Jaijasty2,Facebook Jai Jasty,Youtube Jai Jasty See ya MATT
I'm pretty sure zealous christians even play video games, so it's completely irrelevant that they boycott it.
Star wars does have a wider reach, the game didn't. It sold around 2.4 million copies, which is less then GTA4 and about the same as the others listed.
This is not about them boycotting Star Wars, this is about them boycotting the game, again, stop straw manning.
The game itself, doesn't even have gay relationships (until tomorrow, if you pay $10-20 extra) so EA was doing nothing but creating hype for their game, by once again trying to (ab)use the gay community.
I do not see their support as anything but a PR-stunt, they started it when people started telling them the quality of their games was getting worse and they only seem to bring it up whenever there is some controversy over their games or their actions.
I just looked at the date of the second link and that conveniently coincided with the SimCity debacle.
And yes, the planned the gathering ahead of the release, but they also knew Simcity would be horribly bugged before release.
I don't really believe it's all coincidental.
Offensive: Sexually explicit, racism, threats, pornography
Advertising: Spam, "Make Money Fast", referrer codes
Illegal Activities: Copyright violations, online game cheats
Spoiler with no Warning: Revealing critical plot details with no warning
Harassment/Privacy: Posting personal information, repeated harassment and bullying
Censor Bypassing: Not properly obscuring offensive/banned words
Trolling: Provoking other users to respond inappropriately
Flaming: Insulting other board users
Disruptive Posting: ALL CAPS, large blank posts, hard-to-read posts, mass bumping
Other : Fill in a reason below.
Again, you're not debating, just flaming because you got your feelings hurt and were proven wrong.
Just let it go.
He can't let it go. His supervisor has him assigned to this post for EAs damage control.
The Queen of Light took her bow, and then she turned to go.
The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, and walked the night alone.-Battle of Evermore/Zeppelin
Go back to the kiddie section.
This game is in the kiddie section.
"Star bringing purple! Star bringing yorbel! STOP BRINGING YORBEL! STOP RINGING YOUR BELL!"
Sedated posted...Hope everyone who bought this game feels great about them selves for supporting a company who hides behind gay people and tries to pretend if you hate EA its because you're an intolerant bigot who hated the cover of madden.
What you buy affects the rest of us in many ways. Example, now always online games are going to be a little more accepted.
Its like if you spent all of your money on cocaine. Sure its your money do what you want. But now your attracting criminal elements into the neighborhood etc. It affects everyone in small ways. Don't be proud of your ignorance
On DLC: ""You know what would make this better? Paying more money."- Cracked.com
This is an invalid statement that does not follow from the quotes you cite. Your citations state that the Consumerist does not have any evidence of anyone voting based on an anti-LGBT agenda. It does not say that these votes are not being made. They cannot possibly know why anyone votes the way they do.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle