Why are you comparing homosexual causes to the tobacco industry? I mean, I suppose you might have been trying to show that religious groups have more power overall, but the case against cigarettes wasn't wholly religious no matter how religious the opposition was.
A better, more recent example would be JC Penney and TV shows like "The New Normal", who religious anti-gay groups had been waging war with for a while to no effect. As for Chick Fil A, their locations are heavily concentrated in states that already agree with their owner's message. It's not surprising that a boycott wouldn't hit them quite as hard, especially since such high profile figures in the opposition were forming a reverse boycott at the same time.
It would also seem that people with fundamentalist views that are often required to be adamantly anti-gay aren't likely to play this game in the first place, while being pro-gay has become increasingly more mainstream with everyone else. Add to that the fact that you don't really see a lot of anti-gay groups making a fuss out of video games. In fact I can't recall the last time any of them have made a big fuss about any video game, much less the more involved ones like Final Fantasy. They're ultimately more concerned about TV and movies as far as entertainment goes.
In fact, you could argue that having the religious right oppose your video game could help you. There was a lot of backlash from people who don't play video games about GTA's violence, and that backlash ended up rocketing the series into a successful franchise.
On the other side of things, if they ban in-game gay marriage they will lose paying customers to be sure, but I can't say that it'll be as bad of a backlash so long as the devs make it clear that they're not doing it out of prejudice or religious animus and are instead trying to keep controversy away from their game. It'll be severely disappointing to those who were hoping for the feature, but many people might say that wanting to say away from controversy is understandable.
Whereas people like me would wonder why siding with the anti-gay position is a good way of avoiding the controversy.
Not to mention most times they're not even gamers. Thus far the gaming sites that have actually "reported" on this issue have been either entirely neutral or against the restriction. Very few comments on those articles are against the inclusion of SSM or something like it. Most question the addition of marriage as a whole or complain about various agendas being pushed in their face by an article they willingly clicked on and read. Most of the comments actually discussing the issue at hand were for it.I understand that a lot of this community are for it, and most will still play it. But could other organizations give ff14 a bad rep and decrease future sales, yes. It isn't this games community I am worried about, it is the voice of other organizations that oppose this sort of thing, and they are good at it. I think they have already opened this can of sour potatoes ( wtf lol ) to much, and already causing a stink. Either way, now there will be people offended from one of the sides. I think it would have been better for Yoshi to not have said anything at all.
I think there should be a new poll
"Are you willing to allow Yoshi to take back every saying anything beyond we are adding in marriage"
I would say yes.
The world doesn't need to know if they do or don't. The only reason this is controversal is the too many people that don't even play or plan to play FFXIV know they going in some kind of direction with it. All those external articles made about the issue should have instead been the same as skyrims "They added SSM?! WHO KNEW?! and who cares"
Last edited by Reika; 12-01-2012 at 01:05 PM.
Can you imagine the headlines on that?
I think that train has left. They have to deal with it now.
No one wants a topic like this that shouldn't even be up for discussion to taint the launch of an otherwise cherished game.
very well said. i agreeWhy are you comparing homosexual causes to the tobacco industry? I mean, I suppose you might have been trying to show that religious groups have more power overall, but the case against cigarettes wasn't wholly religious no matter how religious the opposition was.
A better, more recent example would be JC Penney and TV shows like "The New Normal", who religious anti-gay groups had been waging war with for a while to no effect. As for Chick Fil A, their locations are heavily concentrated in states that already agree with their owner's message. It's not surprising that a boycott wouldn't hit them quite as hard, especially since such high profile figures in the opposition were forming a reverse boycott at the same time.
It would also seem that people with fundamentalist views that are often required to be adamantly anti-gay aren't likely to play this game in the first place, while being pro-gay has become increasingly more mainstream with everyone else. Add to that the fact that you don't really see a lot of anti-gay groups making a fuss out of video games. In fact I can't recall the last time any of them have made a big fuss about any video game, much less the more involved ones like Final Fantasy. They're ultimately more concerned about TV and movies as far as entertainment goes.
In fact, you could argue that having the religious right oppose your video game could help you. There was a lot of backlash from people who don't play video games about GTA's violence, and that backlash ended up rocketing the series into a successful franchise.
On the other side of things, if they ban in-game gay marriage they will lose paying customers to be sure, but I can't say that it'll be as bad of a backlash so long as the devs make it clear that they're not doing it out of prejudice or religious animus and are instead trying to keep controversy away from their game. It'll be severely disappointing to those who were hoping for the feature, but many people might say that wanting to say away from controversy is understandable.
Whereas people like me would wonder why siding with the anti-gay position is a good way of avoiding the controversy.
Because that worked so well for EA.
You make the false and arrogant assumption that your position is the default position, and that it always has been. This couldn't be more clear than when you said: "ban in-game gay marriage", as though SSM was already designed into ARR, and Yoshi-P is arbitrarily dropping a ban-hammer on it.On the other side of things, if they ban in-game gay marriage they will lose paying customers to be sure, but I can't say that it'll be as bad of a backlash so long as the devs make it clear that they're not doing it out of prejudice or religious animus and are instead trying to keep controversy away from their game. It'll be severely disappointing to those who were hoping for the feature, but many people might say that wanting to say away from controversy is understandable.
Whereas people like me would wonder why siding with the anti-gay position is a good way of avoiding the controversy.
Face it, the idea of gay marriage wouldn't have occurred to any game designer prior to the year 2000. Could you imagine playing FFIV back in the day and seeing Cecil and Kain getting married at the end?? People then would have laughed at it like it was some sort of crazy joke.
But here's the bottom line:
If people quit FFXIV over an absence of SSM in it, then perhaps they may have been playing the game for the wrong reasons.
But, if people quit FFXIV because SE has effectively taken sides in a hot-button political issue, then it's very likely they will have a distaste for not just this game, but for SE as a company. That means lost sales that far exceed the scope of this one game.
How many people do you know that enjoy in-game ads? What about overt product placement in their favorite show? Well, introducing RL boiler-plate politics into a game is far, FAR worse.
/sigh.. I said I wouldn't' bump this silly thread anymore...
Last edited by Zantetsuken; 12-11-2012 at 05:38 AM.
However, the world is constantly evolving past such petty closed mindsetsYou make the false and arrogant assumption that your position is the default position, and that it always has been. This couldn't be more clear than when you said: "ban in-game gay marriage", as though SSM was already designed into ARR, and Yoshi-P is arbitrarily dropping a ban-hammer on it.
Face it, the idea of gay marriage wouldn't have occurred to any game designer prior to the year 2000. Could you imagine playing FFIV back in the day and seeing Cecil and Kain getting married at the end?? People then would have laughed at it like it was some sort of crazy joke.
But if they quit if they add SSM, then its okay?But here's the bottom line:
If people quit FFXIV over an absence of SSM in it, then I think they may have been playing for the wrong reasons.
Or because they didn't pick the side they are on.If people quit FFXIV because SE has effectively taken sides in a hot-button political issue, then it's very likely they will have a distaste for not just this game, but for SE as a company.
It's already been brought up multiply time that this didn't need to become an issue. Right now, its only an issue in the minds of dieing breeds, which you can see by the poll, they really are dying off. Prior to Y2K, the number of dislikes probably would have been much higher and the likes much lower, according to what you say. But this isn't prior to Y2K anymore.How many people do you know that enjoy in-game ads? What about overt product placement in their favorite show? Well, introducing RL politics into a game is far, FAR worse.
/sigh.. I said I wouldn't' bump this silly thread anymore...
Speaking of dying breeds...
Look at the changing demographics in Europe.
Some countries are looking at ~50% Muslim populations with 30-40 years.
What do you suppose the majority of citizens in Antwerp, Brussels, or London in 2045 would think of SSM? Somehow, I suspect they would consider your position 'antiquated' rather than 'evolved'.
Everyone has their own perspective I guess. I find it best to think to think long-term and big-picture.
Well when you have your newfound muslim overlords in 2045, you can tell them their Bahamut is a dragon and not a whale, and Ifrit can be called to help you, and that there are twelve deities, none named Allah. I'm sure they'll be all aflutter at the idea. Or if not, they'll vent whatever grievance as this game and no other in the series where Bahamut is a dragon and not a whale, Ifrit can be called to help you, and Allah is still not around, but Leviathan is, with water attacks to boot.Speaking of dying breeds...
Look at the changing demographics in Europe.
Some countries are looking at ~50% Muslim populations with 30-40 years.
What do you suppose the majority of citizens in Antwerp, Brussels, or London in 2045 would think of SSM? Somehow, I suspect they would consider your position 'antiquated' rather than 'evolved'.
Everyone has their own perspective I guess. I find it best to think to think long-term and big-picture.
If FFXIV lasts that long in the MMO market, I'm pretty sure there will be no question that its been a rousing success and moneymaker for SE.
And I am aware that Islam is not the wall of unified intolerance some think it is. It isn't even a centralized faith.
Last edited by Kallera; 12-11-2012 at 06:40 AM.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.