News Ubisoft fends off anti-war protesters

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/08...r-protesters/1

Ubisoft has been under siege lately from protesters who object to the 'glorified recruitment tool' called America's Army.

[liratheal]

I can see where the anti-war protesters are coming from - It is one of the more realistic 'games'.

That said, why are they not concerned about Operation Flashpoint, ArmA and ArmA's sequel?

They're just as 'real' in my experience, if not more so in some situations.

[Bauul]

I understand they object, but the US army isn't doing anything illegal, it has every right to develop games as recruitment tools, don't they?

[Risky]

"Protesters argue that the US Army should not be using taxes to fund recruitment tools..........."

I think it's faily essential for the Army to try and recruit.

[thefiringsquadman]

Well, America's Army truly became a recruiting tool at the release of 2.7/2.8 where the actual modifications for recruiting were added in (As well as the dreaded mapping tool, seeing as 80% of all the AA servers play on SOME custom map) It's been nearly a year since AA began having recruitment tools in the game, so I'm surprised that I'm just hearing complaints now (Most gamers usually just avoid the recruitment tool(s) unless they want to join or get bored)

On another note, I think it's completely fair for the Army to try and recruit through any medium, but many people/parents are against this because they say "Oh, well your recruitment programs are just targeting teens, and we don't find that fair." Or something to that tune. True it has been a few months since I've even opened my AA, but I do know that the recruitment NPCs (The hall of heroes thing or w/e) doesn't try very hard to recruit you and it is more user choice than it is forced decision.

[Timmy_the_tortoise]

Originally Posted by Ryan Lockwood]I'm not exactly sure what the laws are[/quote]

Well then, shut the hell up.

[quote="Ryan Cockwood

but if it is being funded by our tax dollars, we have the right to say, 'Hey, stop taking our money and using it for stupid sh**.

No, you don't have that right. Once you've paid your taxes, that money then belongs to the government, and they may distribute it as they please.

[MrMonroe]

Originally Posted by Timmy_the_tortoise

No, you don't have that right. Once you've paid your taxes, that money then belongs to the government, and they may distribute it as they please.

Kinda this. Tax dollars go to army recruitment drives. This is not news. People are freaking out here because woah new medium scary technology and I don't know how to talk to my kids about it.

And, no you don't have the right to go straight to the company the government paid to do something and protest them. You're supposed to write letters to your representatives in Congress.

EDIT: But "Cockwood?" C'mon.

[Timmy_the_tortoise]

Originally Posted by MrMonroe

Kinda this. Tax dollars go to army recruitment drives. This is not news. People are freaking out here because woah new medium scary technology and I don't know how to talk to my kids about it.

And, no you don't have the right to go straight to the company the government paid to do something and protest them. You're supposed to write letters to your representatives in Congress.

EDIT: But "Cockwood?" C'mon.

Cockwood was a bit much...

Still, he is being a bit of an arse. I just hate the whole mentality "the government is stealing our money!" It's not your money, and most of it goes to good causes.

[Cadillac Ferd]

Originally Posted by liratheal

I can see where the anti-war protesters are coming from - It is one of the more realistic 'games'.

That said, why are they not concerned about Operation Flashpoint, ArmA and ArmA's sequel?

They're just as 'real' in my experience, if not more so in some situations.

I think his big problem was the fact that it was being funded by the Army (and by extension the taxpaying public) not necessarily just the fact that the game is very realistic.

[JSRiolo]

Originally Posted by Ryan Cockwood
but if it is being funded by our tax dollars, we have the right to say, 'Hey, stop taking our money and using it for stupid sh**.

We haven't had the ability to say that for some time. War on poverty? War on drugs? Hello? Talk about some stupid ****...

All we can do is vote the *******s out.

[Yemerich]

Originally Posted by Bauul

I understand they object, but the US army isn't doing anything illegal, it has every right to develop games as recruitment tools, don't they?

Guess so as long Ubi doesn't make nay profit out of it.

It would be interesting if the youngsters in america say "no" to enlistings cuz the game is cool enough...
America... always at war for something... Or nothing...

[yodasarmpit]

A bit odd that this has come out now, seeing as the game has been available for the last 5 years.

[cjmUK]

Originally Posted by Yemerich

Guess so as long Ubi doesn't make nay profit out of it.

Why can't Ubisoft make money from it?

Don't you think Halliburton, Boeing, General Electric and Grumman make money out of the DoD? What about the stationers who provide the pens, and the advertising agencies who run the adverts, and the air conditioning engineers who help maintain the bases?

The DoD sub-contract lots of work to lots of companies; it would be vastly more expensive (and therefore irresponsible) for the DoD to keep such skills in-house. Would you rather they hire their own development team to develop AA?

[careyd]

I just don't get this non-sensical protest around a video game that's been published for 'eons' in internet time.

If you're anti-war, or even anti-military, that's fine! That's your right. But the simple fact is that the US Army has always been funded by taxpayer dollars and that has always included recruiting and marketing costs. Whether posters, flyers, TV commercials or internet sites or even banner ads, it's all recruitment effort. Why single out a video game for your anti-tax-funded-recruitment protests? If you really have an issue with the whole thing, then you should be targeting the whole concept of recruiting, not one specific tool they use.

Duh.

[1ad7]

Im surprised this I guess former soldier has the balls to put his name out like that. Im pretty sure he has lost all of his former army buddy's due to these actions. Its a recruiting tool and while its kinda weird to use a army game to recruit soldiers I don't think there target is overly violent screaming teens, IE BF2 I think they are more focused on military minded individuals who also enjoy video games and obviously don't hate the military. Its a great idea and shows that the military is open minded to new mediums which is good.

[Burnin']

guess the US Army is running out of latinos and black people that is now recruiting it's own white kids... those poor kids that can't tell the difference between a game and the real stuff. Those kids convinced by their own parents that their country is fighting for "liberty" and "democracy" in some middle eastern crap hole...

Can't blame the government... it's actually a great marketing practice

[Nexxo]

I think that Lockwood has a point (hear me out, now).

The issue is the method of recruitment rather than recruitment per se. Sure, the army recruits. Usually it is quite up front in its methods: stands at employment/education fairs, "Be All You Can Be" commercials and adverts here and there. However I can imagine that as a parent I would be a bit concerned if recruitment tactics are sort of snuck into my kids' console/computer game without this being pretty explicit, in the same way that I might not feel it is OK for Army recruitment officers to have a nice chat with my underage kid about how cool the army is and whether he ever considered a career in it, without my knowledge.

Teenagers can be a bit more naive and suggestible, and if there are concerns that computer/console games are psychologically influential enough to distort someone's views on acts of violence, could it not be argued that they could also distort the gamer's views on enlisting into the army? Just saying.

The second question is whether tax dollars can thus be spent legitimally. In theory, the voting public decides how their money (and yes, it is their money) is being spent, and I like to think that we (still) have the democratic right to protest and object if we feel that our money is not redeployed in ways that we generally agree with. People have a right to protest, just as much as they have a right to vote.

[liratheal]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I think that Lockwood has a point (hear me out, now).

The issue is the method of recruitment rather than recruitment per se. Sure, the army recruits. Usually it is quite up front in its methods: stands at employment/education fairs, "Be All You Can Be" commercials and adverts here and there. However I can imagine that as a parent I would be a bit concerned if recruitment tactics are sort of snuck into my kids' console/computer game without this being pretty explicit, in the same way that I might not feel it is OK for Army recruitment officers to have a nice chat with my underage kid about how cool the army is and whether he ever considered a career in it, without my knowledge.

I'd have thought the whole.. "Americas Army" title and the entire game revolving around recreation of combat environments would serve as fair demonstration as to the point. It's not exactly subtle about what you're going to do within the game. Not having played it I can't say, but I'd have thought there'd be some sort of note somewhere in there that at least mentions it's a military funded simulation. Probably isn't, but I'd have thought there should be some somewhere.

That's just my take on it, though. I'm sure you've got some response that'll shoot that like fish in a barrel though :P

[boiled_elephant]

Originally Posted by liratheal

I can see where the anti-war protesters are coming from - It is one of the more realistic 'games'.

That said, why are they not concerned about Operation Flashpoint, ArmA and ArmA's sequel?

They're just as 'real' in my experience, if not more so in some situations.

Yeah, but they're so mercilessly difficult and realistic that they don't sell army service as glamorous or easy. Which, as I understand it (which I don't, very well) America's Army does.

[Smegwarrior]

I agree with Nexxo, maybe the recruitment side of it should be that if they want to offer the chance to "Be all you can be" to someone that is under 18 and playing the game that their parents have to make contact with the recruitment office and that way the parents can have the chance to talk to their kid about the implications of signing up for service to their country.

It would go like this:
A kid is playing AA and the Army decides that they seem to have good strategy skills or leadership skills and wants to offer them the chance to enlist.
A message is sent to the player that they seem to have suitable skills for the armed forces and if they are under 18 then they should talk to their parents about a possible career in the armed forces.
If the player is over 18 they can then decide for themselves whether to pursue the offer, if they are under 18 then they have to talk to their parents about it, trying to enlist without their permission is not allowed.
If the parents are ok with them enlisting the parents contact the recruitment office and quote an AA recruitment offer code which allows the recruitment office to see the details as to why they were offered the chance.
An enlistment form is sent out that the kid and parents have to read and sign then send back.
The kid then starts their career in the cadets until they turn 18 and are approved for normal duty.

This way the game works as a recruitment tool but has safeguards against kids signing up for something they do not fully understand.