Unimpressed With Half-Baked Concession, Military Bases Still Won't Sell Medal Of Honor Game

Despite efforts by Electronic Arts to make Medal of Honor more palatable to military members and their families, bases still won’t sell the game when it releases next week. The game formerly allowed online gamers to play as Taliban members, but EA backed down to pressure and changed the squads’ names to “Opposing Force.”

Kotaku spoke to an Army & Air Force Exchange Service Public Affairs spokesman, who said:

Out of respect to those touched by the ongoing, real-life events presented as a game, Exchanges will not be carrying this product. While we regret any inconvenience this may cause, our position is consistent with the direction stated a month ago. I expect the military families who are authorized to shop the Exchange are aware, and understanding, of the decision not to carry this particular offering.”

Do you think the military exchanges are making the right decision?

Military Bases Will Still Not Sell Medal Of Honor Despite Changes [Kotaku]

Previously: EA Removes Taliban Label From Controversial War Game


Edit Your Comment

  1. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    See, you just can’t make the vocal minority happy, so don’t bother trying.

  2. dolemite says:

    Well, they can do what they want, it’s their bases. I’m sure soldiers can just get it shipped in from Amazon or somewhere, because I guarantee they won’t be boycotting it because the upper brass is going all “PC” on them. Military guys love these types of games, no matter if the “bad guys” are called Taliban, Afghanis, SS, or even something stupid like “Opposing Forces”.

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      It’s not banned for military, if that’s what you mean. And there are Gamestops off post, as well as Walmart and a host of other stores that carry the game. Just a retarded decision made to appeal to cry babies, basically. I wonder how the “families” feel about real Opfor? lol

    • MrEvil says:

      I have yet to meet a soldier that DOESN’T want to play these types of games. My buddy that served two tours in Iraq loves CoD and MoH and he’ll probably like MoH more because he can finally bag him some Taliban.

  3. wrjohnston91283 says:

    American’s Army found a way around it – I’m sure EA could have done so just as easily.

    • Gruppa says:

      America’s Army is funded and developed by the military itself, which I imagine cuts through a lot of red tape.

      • Dover says:

        You don’t work for the government, do you?

      • wrjohnston91283 says:

        What red tape? America’s Army had each team play as Americans, but online it looked like one team of americans were defending against an enemy attack while the other team attacks an enemy base, but they’re actually playing against each other.

        • Gruppa says:

          In this case is doesn’t even sound like that would appease them. They refuse to sell the game “Out of respect to those touched by the ongoing, real-life events presented as a game” so even having whatever team you are on be the Americans, because it touches on real-life events.

  4. Tim says:

    EA should just offer a military discount for the game (since prices at exchanges are usually a lot lower than retail) and free shipping to APO/FPO addresses.

    • fsnuffer says:

      The exchanges are no longer that great of a deal. Basically you don’t have to pay sales tax. Congress will not let the exchanges “compete” with the local businesses – so much for supporting the troops. You get a better deal on Amazon.

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      Other than saving on taxes, which are pretty high here, the stores on base actually tend to be more expensive or about the same. I’m not sure about everywhere else, but the one here just cannot keep up with demand on new games and isn’t worth wasting a trip there when Walmart is just up the street, as well as another Gamestop (off base).

  5. full.tang.halo says:

    And this is why you don’t sacrifice your artistic integrity. Classic Lose/Lose; keep the name, it won’t be sold on base / change the name, still won’t be sold on base.

    • SkreanAme says:

      “Artistic Integrity” is not a military concept. This is SOP. Next month it will be no blogs, then blogs are OK again, then you can’t be a night elf if you play WOW, then grooming standards have changed, the frickin’ ROE changes daily… It’s called Army.

      I hear the Marines have it worse. :)

    • El_Fez says:

      Wait – did you just say “artistic integrity”? Are we talking about two different Electronic Arts?

      • full.tang.halo says:

        If photo of a barbie in a blender is art, I think we can extend the same classification to EA in this case…

    • digital0verdose says:

      It wasn’t the military that caused the name change.

      What finally put the nail in the coffin was other allied countries raising a stink over selling the game in their country.

  6. grapedog says:

    Eh, it’s a non-issue. If the base doesn’t want to sell the game because it disagrees with the content, that’s fine, it’s their call. The game can be ordered and shipped to the soldiers, or depending on where a soldier is living, just go off base and buy the game at a local store.

  7. framitz says:

    Much fuss about nothing. Bases have no obligation to carry any particular product and those that want to purchase the crap have many other options.

  8. RevancheRM says:

    “Do you think the military exchanges are making the right decision?”

    Only as so far as they will be missing out on the potential profit to be gained selling it. In the end, the same military buyers will still buy it, but at (relatively) inflated prices.

  9. Admiral_John says:

    On a totally unrelated note, if that picture of those two Thunderbirds was bigger you’d be able to see that the #5 aircraft (the one flying upside down) has the “5” that’s by the intake written upside down. The #5 pilot also has the “5” on his flightsuit upside down. It’s a reference to how much time Thunderbird #5 spends in inverted flight.

    • grapedog says:

      You win the “cool, unrelated, factoid of the day award”. I just spent a few minutes checking that out, thank you for the tidbit! +1

    • fsnuffer says:

      Come on, get real. It is the spare aircraft so when upside down the S looks like a 5. Just kidding

    • nybiker says:

      Yeah, I clicked on the C. Barr link to see his photo and you can enlarge it, and son of a gun, the “5” looks perfectly normal. But then you realize, hey, it’s upside down.
      And if one didn’t know about the Thunderbirds, you’d swear that photo was Photoshopped. That’s how perfectly they fly.

      Again, thanks.

  10. pop top says:

    Does Amazon ship to APO/FPO addresses?

  11. cashxx says:

    This whole thing is stupid! Its just a game! I’m am very sure that soldiers in the field and not in the field play these types of games and love them and have no issue with the Taliban in the game. The game was for people who want to go to war in todays fights without being killed and use the game for entertainment. The game wasn’t made to disrespect anyone or anything and is just outrageous how far this has come along. Our society is getting to touchy feely!!

  12. Cicadymn says:

    That’s OK.

    I played the multiplayer beta. It’s a linear as a a steel beam, and so generic I felt like falling asleep through it.

    If the bases sell Battlefield Bad Company 2 then there’s no reason to even buy Medal of Honor. Especially when BC2: Vietnam comes outs soon.

    • cashxx says:

      They are all the same. They all feel like Modern Warfare 2. I’m still an Arma fan! Go buy Arma 2 and learn how to play it and learn the keys. It has the best Multiplayer action and requires a little skill to play. Just the first time it hard to learn and it requires one heck of a machine. And it requires a PC to play none of the console crap.

      • Cicadymn says:

        I dunno mang, BC2 is great. Destructable environments, good weapons, vehicles. Good graphics, good speed, they just need some more maps.

        Vietnam will help, but they still need more maps for normal BC2. I’ve gotten pretty bored with this.

    • mac-phisto says:

      linear as a a steel beam

      dude, have you ever played MoH before? they’re ALL just dungeon FPS. total waste of $60.

  13. Macgyver says:

    It’s only a damn game. If the soldier’s want the game, they can always get it from someplace else.

  14. Silica says:

    As a retired commissioned officer, I support AAFES’s decision. Why have game portraying US military personnel being killed, strictly for entertainment purposes? That’s not my kind of entertainment.

    • jason in boston says:

      As a former enlisted nuke: Fuck off. Who are you to impose a certain morality on the front line troops?

      Guess who buys these types of games? Those same troops. It is people like you that make me realize I was correct in not making the military a career.

      • jason in boston says:

        Ug – I shouldn’t have cursed. Bad Form. The days of when I had a supply officer try to berate me because I had long sideburns and then had to remind him that I made more money and had more metals than him came back to me. Mea Culpa.

    • evnmorlo says:

      Then don’t play the game.

    • dolemite says:

      You are aware that most any game has:
      1. Civilians being killed.
      2. Cops being killed.
      3. Military of some country being killed.
      4. Just about any combination of military/civilians/fantasy characters being killed.

      Now…why is the US military above being portrayed as an antagonist/protagonist in a game?

    • Mike says:

      “Why have game portraying US military personnel being killed, strictly for entertainment purposes?”

      What about movies that portray US military personnel being killed? How many action movies are released each year showing military being killed for entertainment purposes? Should we ban the sale of those on base too?

    • Foxtrot-Yankee says:

      So, Officer Silica, what do you think of the game America’s Army? It is created by the US Army as a recruitment tool and it portrays US military personnel being killed, strictly for entertainment purposes. Was it OK when the US Army did it?

    • sendbillmoney says:

      Only in America can people get their collective panties in a bunch over how a pretend war is depicted, but display no outrage over the actual, useless wars they emulate. That’s some world-class missing of the mark right there.

      As a retired senior noncommissioned officer, I think AAFES should sell the product if it’s profitable and thereby generate earnings to support military morale, welfare and recreation programs.

      There’s a lot of stuff that AAFES sells that isn’t my cup of tea. You know what I do when those things are on the shelves? I DON’T BUY THEM.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        Not really “only in America” because one of the first people to raise a stink over this was the British Defense Secretary, Liam Fox.

  15. Shadowman615 says:

    Well, hell, if I were EA, I’d go ahead and put the Taliban label right back in the game then. Screw ’em.

    • mac-phisto says:

      that’s exactly what i was thinking. “ok, no budge from the military…this just in…MoH has the taliban again! (now with rapid action machete arm)”

      i just love how no one even blinked an eye when MW2 came out – that had all kinds of bad military representation in it.

  16. Mike says:

    My question is will I be able to play online with a good selection of maps without having to by some additional “VIP” pass or something? Otherwise I am going back to COD.

  17. Chaosium says:

    It wasn’t about “political correctness”, it wasn’t about “the soldiers”, it was about nanny-state (non-partisan) idiots.

  18. kujospam says:

    They should of called the other team Friendly Fire. LOL

  19. banmojo says:

    Does the exchange carry GTA? ANY GTA titles? If so, they can go f*** themselves. Rape victims/physical abuse victims exist as well inside the military, and GTA makes light of both. Hypocrites.