EA Promotes Sale of Real Weapons on ‘Medal of Honor: Warfighter’ Site

Published 2 years ago by

Medal of Honor Warfighter Gun Promotion

In a weird cross-promotional frenzy, Medal of Honor: Warfighter (for a time) was promoting the sale of real weapons through the official site of its virtual game. Players were being asked to check out the real world weapons featured in Warfighter and encouraged, in some cases, to purchase them.

A controversial move to say the least, this promotional ploy by the folks behind Medal of Honor: Warfighter, specifically Executive Producer Greg Goodrich, is in poor taste. There is some leeway in the realm of cross-promotion, but when it encourages gamers to get their hands on weapons it becomes a bigger issue.

Goodrich began a series of blog posts on the Warfighter site — posts that have since been taken down — hyping up many of the weapons that will be featured in the game. He even announced a partnership with a knife manufacturer that would breed a limited edition tomahawk that is currently available for pre-order. This is a pre-order well beyond some night vision goggles or a remote controlled car.

All of the aforementioned materials have since been taken down, whether it was by publisher EA or Danger Close is unclear, but the damage is already done. Many gamers were looking forward to Warfighter because of its adoption of the Frostbite 2 engine, but this poorly timed PR move might have soiled the property.

It’s one thing to claim your game features authentic weapons used in a military setting, but to provide the means for fans to purchase those weapons over the Internet is another. We’ve just experienced a national tragedy that resulted from one person’s covert patronage of a gun distributor, and showing individuals how easy it is to acquire those weapons paints the company in a bad light.

Needless to say the damage has been done, and while most will never know this even happened when Warfighter releases, it’s important to put video games in their proper context: as a source of entertainment. Further drawing any connection between the escapism present in a military shooter and real life only gives concerned officials more fuel.

How do you feel about the sale of real weapons being “promoted” on the Warfighter website? When does the line between entertainment and reality get crossed?

Medal of Honor: Warfighter releases October 23, 2012 for the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.

Source: Gamespot

TAGS: Danger Close Games, Electronic Arts, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor 2, PC, PS3, Xbox 360


Post a Comment

  1. I’ve grown up around weapons, living on a dirt road surrounded by woods and farmland. I learned to shoot at around 5 or 6 so I firmly believe in the ownership of weapons, especially weapons that are uncommon commercially.

  2. I’ve grown up around weapons, learning to shoot at around 5 or 6 so I firmly believe in the ownership of weapons, especially ones that are uncommon commercially.

  3. I don’t have a problem with this, but then again, my family consists of hunters and gun enthusiasts.

  4. I, myself, learned to shoot when I was 5 years old. And since then I’ve cherished opportunities to handle out-of-the-ordinary weapons.

  5. Stupid thing. Said it couldn’t post the first two.

  6. You didn’t think 5 replies was enough Taylor? Please let me know once more how you learned to shoot when you were 5, i’m waiting anxiously.

  7. its no big deal they did this, hell i welcome it because it gave me a small chance to get one of these bad boys for real! hell the walmart where i live sells scars and m16s. game rant kind of went barrack obama on us and freaked out over a nothing issue.

  8. Ha. That wasn’t my fault, I swear. And yes, I did learn to shoot at 5 years old. It was a little 7 shot, stock fed .22, which I still have. I grew up in a household where we hunted for most of our meat and grew many of our own vegetables and fruits. The difficult part of teaching a child to shoot is conveying the danger involved and the required respect for the weapons. Once that’s down, the act of shooting is very simple and can be an extremely safe practice.

    • @Taylor

      Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa there cowboy. You shoot guns? That must mean you’re an extremely violent person that just want to kill everyone you see, I know it, don’t try to lie. We all know decent people just smoke weed and only use guns against people who don’t support gay marriage…

  9. And Brandon’s right. There are a ton of retailers that sell high class weapons. The only restriction you’ll find most of the time is that they can’t sell automatic weapons to ordinary citizens. You can even buy a Barrett .50 here.

    • That’s fantastic, but why do you need a Barret .50 to hunt? Why do you need a scar or m16 for home defense?

      • The 5.56mm NATO/.223 Remington round (found in come scar configurations as well as the AR15/M16 and many others) is excellent for home defense assuming you use the correct bullet. It has good stopping power while keeping recoil low and, most importantly, it does not have the overpenetration problem that many other rounds (including pistol rounds) have. That makes it safer for anyone in the house who you are not intending to shoot. Full auto fire is another story of course, but if I could have the option I certainly would.

      • @dan

        Wow, never realized you need to prove a “need” to own stuff. So I’m sure you have a moped, or at most, a car with 50hp right? Because that’s really all you “need” to get you from point A to B. I mean, why do you “need” to have 200hp in your car? Why do people “need” to have shiny rims? Why do you “need” to have nice patio furniture. Do you “need” an automatic garage opener? Just open it manually. Heck, why do you “need” a garage? Just park your car in a driveway. Actually, you don’t “need” a driveway, just park it alongside the road. Do you “need” to have an Xbox or PS3? Why do you “need” a television? Get rid of it now because you cannot prove a “need!” Beds are a luxury that you don’t “need.” Sleep on the floor with some covers. It’s better for your back anyway. And if you don’t live in a very hot and humid place, you don’t “need” to have air conditioning either, so you better uninstall that and throw it away if you have it and you live in a place with a cool climate… Do you “need” a 5.1 surround sound system? Of course not, let’s ban that too…

        • @KenJ

          My car, rims, patio furniture, garage, garage door opener, driveway, xbox, tv, bedding, a/c, and surround sound can’t land a metal slug in someone’s noggin at 500+ yards. Way to grasp at false equivalence there. And note, I’m not proposing a ban on firearms. Just limitations on models and modifications available on the open market, and more employment of background checks as well as closing down the gunshow sales loophole. So way to miss the point also.

          • @dan

            Oh? So your car can’t run people over? You can’t smash your Xbox over your wife’s head during an argument and kill her with it with cerebral hemorrhaging? Like I’ve said before, I guarantee you if I WANT to kill someone, I can kill more people with my car in an hour than you can with a gun… It’s not about the tools, it’s about the person controlling those tools.

            I can stab you in the eye with a pen, punch you in the windpipe causing swelling which stops the breathing which kills you, break your neck at the base of the spinal cord effectively decapitating you internally, like I already said run you over with my car, choke you to death with my bare hands, with my belt, or with any kind of bindings, use duct tape to cover all of your passages so you suffocate to death, I can kill you in many different ways without the need of a gun. I mean, you can’t say something cool like “land a metal slug” with these other ways, but same difference…

          • @dan

            And also, just curious, but these laws on the limitations on models and modifications, who will that actually prevent from getting them? People like me who follow the laws or criminals that don’t?? And does it matter at all that the majority of gun crime is done using simple hand guns and not any fancy rifles with fancy modifications? A bullet is a bullet is a bullet and when it comes to criminals, concealment is more important than fancy mods and accessories… But hey, what do I know…

          • @KenJ

            I can dodge your stab, block your punch, apply counter pressure to interfere with any neck snapping, run my thumbs through your eye sockets before your hands or belt or binds get anywhere near my throat, or impact my palm into your nasal cavity and inflict a cerebral hemorrhage. These methods dramatically reduce your chances of success than rather leveling a barrel and pulling a trigger.

            And BS. Tools matter. New tools mean new methods. New methods historically increase mortality rates. Cars get flat tires and encounter obstructions, can be dodged and bounced off of. Unwieldy bricks of plastic get fumbled and shatter, and are clumsy to use. Guns with scopes and the ability to pray’n’spray are point and shoot. Ultimate accessibility to life-taking, regardless of the person. Now, could you succeed in employing these other methods? Maybe. But wars aren’t fought with rifles just because knives are oh so deadly.

            And bottom line, if you want to kill someone, there are logically a million ways to do it. On the other hand, if you want to kill a lot of people all at once, the kind of act gun control was initially intended to prevent, you’re going to need something a bit better than knives, pens, belts, cars, bonds, etc.

          • @dan

            LOL, I know you’re just speaking figuratively, but reading that still kind of made me laugh… :-D

            But anyway, you can think what you want to think, the fact remains that if someone is intent on killing someone, he/she will find a way. No reason to try to find the one situation that would fit your argument. But in the end, what will passing more laws do? Again, who will the laws affect? Law-abiding citizens? Or criminals that don’t follow laws? All you do with gun laws is make it harder for a law-abiding citizen like myself to have a tool to protect myself from the criminal scum that will always find a way of getting what he needs. Imagine if one of the faculty members on Columbine High School had a concealed weapon license and was allowed to carry that day. Imagine if some of the students and/or staff in Virginia Tech had concealed weapons as well. How would those situations have turned out differently? Do you think it’s just a “coincidence” that almost all mass killings occur in these so-called “gun free zones?” Seriously, why do you not see these things happening at gun shows, or at gun shops?? The last time I remember reading about an attempted robbery at a gunshop, it didn’t end so well for the wannabe robber…

            If someone breaks into my house while I’m home, I don’t see why my options for how I will rid the world of this pest should be limited because some “just be a victim” advocate thinks we all should be required to prove some “need” before we can spend our hard-earned money to buy something.

            I have a shotgun that can hold 6 rounds in the magazine and 1 round in the chamber. Do I need 7 rounds of 2-3/4″ 00-buck to stop one intruder? Probably not, but again, why limit my advantage over this waste of molecules, piece of garbage?? I also have ghost ring sights on my shotgun, again, don’t “need” it, but why the heck not? I want to be able to have every advantage possible over this bottom-feeding scum sucker criminal. The government passes laws telling people they cannot own these things or an AR15 which they wanted because it is similar to what he/she used when he/she was in the armed forces, or someone who have been working double shifts for a year so he can afford to splurge on a .50 cal rifle just for the heck of it. That’s just like the laws telling people drugs are illegal, robbing people is illegal, killing people is illegal… Yet, drugs are everywhere, people still rob people, and people still kill people… And yet, we have folks like you that think passing laws actually work…

            Let me enlighten you with something. Laws pretty much only provide for a means to justify punishing someone for a crime AFTER they commit it. They do very little to actually deter them from doing it… I’m pretty sure all of those people who decided they wanted to kill a bunch of people in a school, post office, or government building, didn’t blink an eye at the signs that say “No Weapons.” There’s a reason there have only been one incident of a criminal trying to rob a gun shop while it’s open… And that reason is not the law saying it’s illegal, it’s the deterrence in knowing that everyone in that shop is armed and able to defend themselves.

            If you have two store-fronts, one labeled “NRA meeting” and the other “Brady Campaign meeting” and a robber is told that each one has a suit case filled with $1 million in it, which one do you think he will choose to go into??? It’s not that hard to figure out, I promise…

          • @ Dan

            If you want to kill a lot of people at once, screw guns. Explosives are the best way to go. Hell, even kamikaze pilots. I’m speaking strictly from knowledge, of course; I’ve never killed anyone.

  10. Hey author, I own guns.. Lots of them but guess what! I have never shot or considered shooting anyone! Crazy concept I know! I knew before reading this poorly thought out piece that one of the recent shootings would be brought up and make a sad attempt at promoting gun control. Funny how you leftists want nothing more than to use the next big tragedy to further your agenda. Crazy people will do crazy things guns or not. If someone wants to hurt people they will find a way. By this logic would you have banned fertilizer and the ability to rent a truck? Using your thought process after the Oklahoma bombing there would never be another bombing again right?

    • Woah, Jeff.

      Anthony says it’s bad PR… and it is. Regardless of any of our personal beliefs, this created controversy and negative buzz – so much so that they took it down. That says it all.

      • Jeff, the difference between fertilizer and guns is that fertilizer has a practical purpose beyond killing things. A guns sole purpose is to kill. And fair enough if you’re a hunter, but when was the last time anybody hunted anything other than people with a fully automatic assault rifle.

        • And if you mishandled a gun someone gets shot, if you mishandled fertilizer, the worst case scenario is you get covered in s***. You’re argument sir is poorly thought through, and extremely cliche.

          • Mike, there are a lot of things that aren’t intended to be used to kill that are. Knives, cars, different household products that can be used to poison. Those are just a few examples. If someone is a psycho, they will find ways to kill without guns. Look at the UK, they have rampant stabbings and tons of violence. Most Anti-gun people have never been around guns and also have no knowledge of the laws. They were saying that moron in Colorado had a machine gun, and he didn’t, he had a semi-automatic weapon which is no different than your Grandpa’s hunting rifle, it just looks like a military weapon. Full Auto weapons are very rare and very expensive. They also haven’t been widely available since 1986. So please, before you run your mouth, do some research.

          • @mike

            And if you mishandle a car you can take out an entire crowd of people, or cause a pile-up on a highway that can kill a dozen people… I guess they better ban cars…

            And I have plenty of guns. Funny how I’ve been using my personally owned firearms for about 20 years now and have never killed a single living being with my personally owned firearms in all of that time… I guess I’ve never really used them before… :-D

            The sole purpose of my firearms is for self-defense, for the “just in case” situation that might or might not happen. Plus shooting is my hobby. But I guess it isn’t a hobby you personally enjoy so you must attack it… Oh but I’m sure if the government tries to ban something you personally enjoy, you’ll be up in arms screaming about how it was your right to do it…

    • Oh? Do enlighten me on the specifics of this “leftist agenda.” Because the only agendas I know of are the bs right wing hypocrisies and corruptions focused in trickle down economics and citizens united, privatizing every social service that should by no means be given over to profit seeking corporations and drafting fast-track bills that choke the life out of middle class citizens.

      Also, your gun control thought is unfounded. Gun control exists to limit damage, and the capacity to cause it. Would shootings still occur if gun sales were more strictly limited? Absolutely. No doubt about it. But how many bodies would we be talking about if, instead of having a thirty round magazine, Loughner could only get a six round clip? As for the bombing, skilled bomb makers are harder to come by, and they can McGyver an explosive out of anything having to do with oxygen, hydrogen, or fuel. Only problem is, successfully using such a thing for anything other than making really cool holes in the ground is a bit more elaborate and difficult, and if actually successfully deployed, unstoppable to avert.

      At the end of the day, there just simply isn’t much that can be done. That doesn’t mean you sit on your rear and throw precaution to the wind just because, “crazy people will do crazy things”

  11. Meh. You have to be 18 to purchase long guns, 21 to purchase handguns. Many of the people who will play MoH:W or visit their website are under 18, so I don’t think it’s a big deal. I don’t think an 18-year-old who doesn’t have any guns, or anyone else really, is going to up and buy one just because a game’s website encouraged him to.

    • @Matt

      I agree. Not to mention, you’ll still have to have it shipped to a licensed gun dealer, who will then be required to run you through the system the say way as anyone else who walks into the gun shop to legally purchase a firearm. This really changes nothing. This is just like any ad for a gun you’ll see in gun magazines. Just this time it’s part of the marketting campaign for a game. It’s not like they are shipping it to peoples’ houses bypassing all of the red-tape…

      • Exactly.

  12. Great EA more ammunition for Jack Thompson to use.

    • Jack Thompson was permanently disbarred by the Florida supreme court for inappropriate conduct and being general ***hole.

  13. I too am a real gun owner and enthusiast but that doesnt change the fact that this is a bad PR move for EA. Most of us with real guns have been taught to have the upmost respect for the gun as well as the precautions that must always be taken to ensure your safety and the safety of those around you.

    I dont want any 18 y/o frat boy that logs on to a video game website to be encouraged to buy a real gun. First thing he’ll do is have his friend take a picture of him with it pointed at the camera/his friend so he can post it on his facebook page. He does that again after a day of shooting it and forgets to clear the chamber and accidentally shoots his friend dead. That’ll be national news. EA will take heat because they encouraged the purchase and it’ll make gun owners look like dangerous irresponsible idiots which leads to more of our rights being taken away (especially here in CA.) It’s is an accident waiting to happen. I say good move taking it down.

    And a side note; I hate how much this game is being marketed with brand name components. Im just waiting for the screen shots where there is a giant Trijicon billboard in the middle of the jungle. Im betting on heavy product placement too.

  14. It’s our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, whether you actually exercise it or not. While it does draw a bit of an unsettling feeling, it’s an unfortunate growth pain of the digital age we are entering. Companies already do this with other products.

    Also, the Colorado lunatic has no connection whatsoever to the military, video games, and their relation to owning legal firearms. That’s an excuse to hype controversy.

    • Still not a smart move on EA’s part though. Hardly their first misstep.

      • The second amendment right that everyone states but never quotes actually says… “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        In other words, this relates more to an armed force than the general public.

        Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson himself said “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.” in other words, your cobstitution, over 200 years old, is now so out dated it is an act of force, not right. A number of Americans seem to wield their constitutional rights like they are unshakeable universal truths, yet a bet a very small percentage have actually read or done any research about said constitution. No xenophobia intended, but sometimes despair at the attitude of the vocal minority.

        • Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not the Supreme Court’s.

        • A militia is made up of citizens. It is not a reference to the military. Do you know nothing of US history?

        • @mike

          Uh, yah, you kind of ignored a little punctuation mark in the middle there… yah… take some classes on constitutional law and learn something. Our founding fathers didn’t make “typos.” The wording of the amendments are very clear, and that comma isn’t there by accident… Be cool, stay in school folks…

    • @TaboriHK

      I agree.

      • It is extremely open to interpretation, I guess ours differ.
        So what of the part about it needing to be rewritten after 19 years? That’s pretty clear.

        • And do you consider yourself a well regulated militia? or one man with a gun? Just saying these laws should be at least looked at, and revising them should be considered.

          • @mike

            LOL, just because YOU wish for it to be interpretted a different way doesn’t make it so. Why don’t we try to interpret different possible meanings behind all of the amendments in the bill of rights? Why stop at just the 2nd? Or is it just because your political beliefs differ from that one so it has to be changed? :-D

          • @mike

            The fact is, the revolutionary war was won, in part, by normal citizens who were armed. And our founding fathers recognize this, which is the reason behind the 2nd Amendment. The military is controlled by our government. Our founding fathers wanted to have something in the constitution to give the people a fighting chance against a corrupt government, which is what they considered Great Britain back when they decided to fight for their independence. It wouldn’t even make sense for them to right in our bill of rights that only the military can have weapons. That is a direct contradiction of their intentions for having that in there. They planned for the possibility for even our own new government to maybe one day become corrupted or overpowering and turn on its people. The government needs to fear its people, not the other way around. The first step of any government wishing to take total control of its people is to disarm its citizens. And you see this time and time again if you look back in history. There’s a reason for that… But if it was up to you, we’ll just go ahead and follow that road and repeat that…

          • The ability to form a militia is a necessary part of forming a militia. If everyone gets their guns taken away, then when the time comes to form a militia, you will not have the requisite components.

        • No, it isn’t. In the same way that the 1st Amendment is pretty clear. The Bill of Rights in general should be taken at face value, and was written to be taken at face value.

          • The above is directed at Mike. Comment spacing is a little confusing.

  15. I understand bad PR, but I don’t think EA is encouraging anyone. IDK, people are gullible and need something to blame whenever something happens. Why can’t we just accept responsibility for our actions?


    • Lol!

  17. The real tragedy is that it is legal to purchase weapons over the internet.

    • @internet justice

      Yah, the real tragedy is that people don’t do their homework before commenting about something they don’t know anything about…

      You can’t just order firearms and have them shipped to your house genius. They have to be shipped to a licensed gun shop where in order to receive it you will be treated like any other customer that is trying to purchase a firearm legally through that gunshop. Which means an instant criminal background check, 5 day waiting period if applicable, etc. etc…

    • It’s been legal for years, and rightfully so. Gun laws are in place. Don’t worry. You still have to go through a federal background check. There’s no difference.

  18. I have firearms, but I haven’t used them since I left the armed forces. This is really an idiotic move for EA. Warfighter is really making controversy before it’s release like the first one. When the first one showed the ability to play as Taliban.

    • I’m not sure how idiotic it is because how many people were talking about Warfighter before this trailer? I haven’t heard much buzz in the last month at all.

  19. Hey guys, since criminals follow laws like gun laws, we should have a law making murder, rape, robbery, and assult illegal…

    Wait, what’s that? They are already illegal? Then how are people still doing them??? I thought they followed the laws… I mean, how else would passing laws on guns work???

  20. Been reading these comments. I’m with Ken J. It’s not the tool, it’s the person wielding it. People just need a scapegoat.

    • Yep. It’s like the cliche saying goes: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

    • @ATG

      It’s in some peoples’ nature to always want to remove responsibility from the individual. When someone does something bad, it’s everyone and everything’s fault except that person who did it… It’s kind of sad that some people have that mindset, but unfortunately some people do…

      • @Ken J
        You are totally on the money my friend.Most folks are either scared or have no knowledge of gun ownership and,recognize the respect and overall safety of guns due to this right to ownership.Most folks are worried to having to take on a highly responsible account to owning a firearm within their family or personal effect.It is not a light responsibility.It entails time,effort and, correct practice to become comfortable enough to engage with it.Just like driving a car or operating anything that is complicated enough to be a danger to anyone other than the operator.It takes respect and practice to familiarize yourself with it to the point that it becomes another tool to be used effectively,in the right situation.
        To others that complain that it is a tool for just killing…that my friends is all in the way that you aim.Besides,like I heard the other day,lets ban all forks & spoons cause they are making me fat and its not my fault ’cause they are widely available.
        Hope you muppets have something other than a baseball bat or golf club when the Zombie Apocalypse hits cause your gonna need it….LMAO…

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

marketing automation