Obama takes campaign to Burnout's Paradise City
by Ross Miller 
{ Oct 14th 2008 at 10:45AM }
Electronic Arts Director of Coroporate Communications told GigaOM, "I can confirm that the Obama campaign has paid for in-game advertising in Burnout," while also noting that they accept ads from "credible political candidates" and that such ads do not reflect the opinion of EA or its employees. As recently as yesterday, Obama is still citing video games in stump speech about underachieving kids.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
PojoMofo @ Oct 14th 2008 10:49AM
LMAO at voteforchange.org
the kinda chage hes selling, i aint buyin'
Miguel @ Oct 14th 2008 10:52AM
Agreed
copa @ Oct 14th 2008 11:16AM
Sorry, guys, but most American voters disagree.
You'll get another shot at trying to convince us to elect President Palin in 2012.
(Motto: Why should I be able to name a Supreme Court Decision? I'm just gonna appoint those rascals, God bless 'em!)
theturtle363 @ Oct 14th 2008 11:54AM
just because the guy doesn't like Obama doesn't mean he likes McCain/Palin.
Yourself @ Oct 14th 2008 11:57AM
"Most American voters disagree"
In other news, the outbreak of complete fabrications based on little to no fact continues.
Last time I checked, the polls were pretty even, not that polls mean all that much.
copa @ Oct 14th 2008 12:02PM
"Last time I checked, the polls were pretty even"
It's going to be pretty funny on November 4th, when the people who have been watching nothing but Fox News for the last couple of months find out for the first time that Obama has been ahead in the polls.
Maverick Saturn @ Oct 14th 2008 12:09PM
The ad is meant for people that don't vote on a usual basis because they couldn't care less who or what thier president was before, something he's doing very well at in this election. He not just gotten people that don't vote interested, he's got the world interested.
So I doubt the people that don't buy or like his campaign will faze him in the slightest or even stop him advertsising in games :)
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 14th 2008 12:12PM
I agree that polls don't mean much, as there are a ton of people who don't get asked (like college-aged people at universities) but the polls are not very close. Most have Obama with at least a 10% lead and it seems to grow every day.
Knight Marquise @ Oct 14th 2008 12:24PM
TMA~
"the polls are not very close. Most have Obama with at least a 10% lead"
Actually you're wrong. The various polls show Obama ahead anywhere from 2% to 13%, and in at least half those polls the spread is within the margin of error.
Essentially, the race is a dead heat at this time. We're still 3 weeks away from the general, so anything can happen to tilt one way or the other.
Miguel @ Oct 14th 2008 12:31PM
The polls arent quite 10% yet, CNN poll of polls has Obama with an 8% lead. Of course these polls usually have a margin of error of at least +/- 5% but what is currently the talk of these polls is something called the Bradley effect: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/obama.bradley.effect/index.html?iref=newssearch
Although, I don't agree that race should be a factor the truth is its there and its affecting the accuracy of the numbers. So don't fully trust the numbers.
BTW, Copa, like theturtle said, don't make generalizations like that. I'm an independent voter who just doesn't agree with Obama's view points. To generalize that we would support Palin in 2012 is foolish.
thesimplicity @ Oct 14th 2008 12:44PM
There is no dead heat, people. Seriously.
www.fivethirtyeight.com
Almost a 95% win percentage is far from a dead heat. Polls don't equal electoral votes.
Miguel @ Oct 14th 2008 12:47PM
simplicity,
Those electoral predictions are based on polls. Where did you think the data came from? God?
Markez @ Oct 14th 2008 1:11PM
Just a random note. I think on most of your typical and/or traditional polls are based on households? And don't account for people who only have a cell phone, and no ground line?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Annnnnnnd since I can't resist, I think to generalize that anyone would ever vote for a President Palin on her own merits is ludicrous. Good lawd I hope it's as ludicrous as I think it be. I just love the way she is straight up lying and saying the AL investigation found she did nothing unethical.
Dammit, Joystiq. One of the tags they should put on the political articles should be "It's a TRAAAAP!"
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Oct 14th 2008 1:34PM
I'm sorry, but anyone thinking that this race is close currently is out of their mind, or has blinders on.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
And this is a site by a guy from Princeton that factors in all the "wiggle factors" from the polling. The non-landline polling, the Bradley Effect, all that.
http://election.princeton.edu/history-of-electoral-votes-for-obama/
I'm not saying "it's over" because there's always time left for something weird to happen, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a currently a dead heat. These two sites rely on an average of a group of polls which removes, not averages, the margin of error. (Take a statistics class sometime.)
Obama's up 7.5% nationally, and he's currently carrying anywhere from 43-83 more Electoral Votes than are needed to win the Presidency.
Miguel @ Oct 14th 2008 1:53PM
God, I hate it when people say "take a statistics class sometime" or "take a philosophy course sometime", as part of their argument; as if taking one course makes you an expert and absolutely 100% correct. As if being an expert in the subject is even a prerequisite to winning the argument. Idiotic statement. "Take a logic course sometime!"
See how dumb it sounds?
And yes I have taken statistics courses and that is completely irrelevant.
I will concede that Obama is winning and its likely not a dead heat but my point was that its likely closer than these polls suggest. No amount of "factoring out wiggle factors" can accurately predict intangible possibilities such as the bradley effect. You can use any amount of statistics but generalizing assumptions about a large population based on a small population is can be subject to huge amounts of error.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Oct 14th 2008 2:07PM
How about "try reading an article sometime"?
The Bradley Effect doesn't exist anymore. Even when it did, it was a 2-3% point shift. There are also a number of counter examples to the Bradley Effect. David Dinkins, a black man running for Mayor of New York in 1989 was polling at 0-5% over Ed Koch, the incumbent, before his election and won by 8%.
If you're not willing to read this study, here's the crux of it:
"Before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points."
http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf
I will definitely agree that polling is an inexact science, especially since this is asking people what they're going to do a month from now, but for right now, Obama's solidly ahead. Even McCain is admitting this.
offday @ Oct 14th 2008 2:23PM
I don't care who you support, this is retarded. Gamers should be pissed. Just when I thought there was a place I could get away from this crap, it's in my games now. I'm so glad I traded this game in awhile ago.
offday @ Oct 14th 2008 2:28PM
@ Markez,
Last time I checked Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, not Alabama. You might want to get your state abbreviations right before you open your mouth.
HA, a democrat who doesn't know what the heck they're talking about, imagine that.
Lars @ Oct 14th 2008 2:42PM
Who is ahead in the polls is completely useless info to me. I vote for who I think will make the best president, it really doesn't matter who is ahead. Vote for what's right, not for what's popular. Think for yourselves, people!
P.S. the article says this is only in the 360 version... does the PS3 version get McCain ads? LOL!
Jesse @ Oct 14th 2008 4:32PM
@offday
Wow, you're brilliant. You seized upon the fact that he clearly pressed "L" instead of "K" which is directly to the left. Therefore, everything he said is totally irrelevant and completely wrong. Or, you're retarded. I vote the latter.
Fox318 @ Oct 14th 2008 10:49AM
The Obama camp knows where to advertise. Smart move really.
il_duce620 @ Oct 14th 2008 10:52AM
Not advertising on the PS3 version, I take it?
dark_inchworm @ Oct 14th 2008 11:15AM
Obama is clearly a fanboy.
Doug @ Oct 14th 2008 9:46PM
Wait.. aren't these the same guys that wanted to fine and prosecute? Have fun voting for them...
Doug @ Oct 14th 2008 9:46PM
fine and prosecute us for pirating*. I should start finishing my senten
Eric @ Oct 14th 2008 10:52AM
Oh shit this talk back is going to explode.
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 10:53AM
Nothing wrong with getting the underrepresented youth to vote, I say. But I still don't like where Obama stands on video games in general. Kind of hypocritical, I say.
Neuromancer @ Oct 14th 2008 11:03AM
His comment wasn't that bad, all he said is parents need to make sure their kids are doing homework instead of watching TV or playing video games. Kind of a no brainer really. Don't know what he's said in the past though.
Obie @ Oct 14th 2008 11:04AM
He has been hit or miss. During the GTA4 release he mentioned that he'd like more parental involvement in videogame purchases, which I agree with.
But at least he knows about em, I don't think McCain knows anything about videogames and that can be bad.
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:25AM
@Necromancer: He's said some sort of conservative things in the past that weren't to my liking. Some stuff along the lines of it being a bad influence on teens, etc. I'm no politicologist, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
@Obie: Actually, I did forget about his comment about more parental involvement in games. I whole-heartedly agree with that comment. And I think it does help that he's not 90 years old like his opponent.
Zach S @ Oct 14th 2008 11:26AM
A lot of kids today play things they shouldn't, and play them too much, disregarding any homework or studying that they have to do. It's a fact that Obama is addressing in a way I find very suitable- the parents should regulate their kids' usage of videogames, not the government. I see no problem in this, and if you do, you're probably not old enough to vote yet...
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:31AM
@Zach S: We're on the same page, and I am well past voting age and will vote for Obama, but I'm still calling you out for sounding like a douche in that last line.
samfish @ Oct 14th 2008 11:33AM
Obama hasn't really said anything bad about games. He's consistently said that parents should stop letting videogames and TV babysit their children and spend more time with them, rather than letting those things have an influence on them.
...which is basically what every videogame blog comment section reads like whenever Jack Thompson/Joe Lieberman/the media or whoever revs up the ol' demonetization engine again.
Deric Lee @ Oct 14th 2008 11:33AM
Obama stance on video games has always been about the parents responsibility.
He doesn't want to change any laws or ban content, additionally he has NEVER said that video games where a bad influence, if you can post a link that shows that as a verified comment I'll send you $100.
He just used video games in the same terms as TV, that parents need to make sure education is first and entertainment is second.
If you think your own children should put video game playing as a higher priority then learning then that's fine with me, I'll make sure my son, the doctor, will treat your McDonalds career kid the same as educated patients.
But hey, at least you kid will pwn at COD 8
Dirty @ Oct 14th 2008 11:36AM
I dont like where any candidate stands on games. Frankly its a generational problem (older people just dont get it). Even if they had an open mind on games, they couldn't talk about it because they are politicians and honestly younger people dont vote as much as old white folks who are scared of GTA.
Monkey Thing?!!? @ Oct 14th 2008 11:41AM
Its an easy one to follow. Old people vote, young people don't, old people don't get games, but like the rock n' roll of yore, they suspect it has something to do with how much worse-behaved this generation is than they remember their own being
So a few vaguely anti-game comments will appease them, without angering us, who (statistically) otherwise could care less
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:42AM
Oh em gee, peeps! Please read the rest of my comments before putting all those words in my mouth.
And, to me, using video games as a metaphor for under achievement is NOT a good thing for its image. I agree with the placement of responsibility on the parent, but by consistently using games as an example of why your kid cannot do well in school, he is marking games as a PROBLEM, not a positive influence in a kid's life.
But yes, compared to conservatives, Obama is practically praising video games up and down and probably wouldn't touch them while in office.
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:51AM
@Dirty: Well, you are way more of a politicologist than me. I kind of forgot about the fact that he has to play middle ground...I guess we can't expect a candidate to openly embrace a medium that's currently the punching bag of every news media outlet when some kid shoots another kid.
Maverick Saturn @ Oct 14th 2008 12:03PM
Lol, McCain and videogames? From a person that doesn't know the faintest idea about computers, I doubt anyone would pay much attention to what he has to say in reference to games, the most he can do on that topic is repeat what Obama said.
ogvor @ Oct 14th 2008 12:16PM
I used to think the same way, but if you really look at it he's saying that kids who don't do well in school shouldn't be putting a lot of time in with the video games, and really who can disagree with that? He doesn't seem to be criticizing kids who excel and also play video games or adults who play video games, just the kids playing games instead of doing their homework.
Besides, if Obama can get more 13 year olds off of Xbox Live, then he's got my vote!
Haggard @ Oct 14th 2008 12:26PM
While Obama has been a bit disparaging about games in that they're something he thinks kids should be doing less of, he's never shown any desire to put any policy in this area and to do so would be suicide. It's one thing to ban something for violent content, but quite another to pass laws explicitly stating how to raise your children.
On that subject however, Palin tried to get books with sex scenes and swear words banned from her local library back in Alaska. BOOKS.
My message to you guys across the atlantic is pick your president wisely.
Ordeith @ Oct 14th 2008 12:35PM
Everyone is focusing on the wrong person.
For Video games (music, movies, magazines, books)
and Freedoms (Governmental power, RIAA and MPAA support.)
Joe Biden is the biggest threat.
offday @ Oct 14th 2008 2:24PM
hypocritical is Obama's middle name.
Zach S @ Oct 14th 2008 11:52PM
I totally considered dropping the last line for its' douchiness... but then I hit 'Add Comment.' I'm sorry- I should've said, "if you do, then you must be an individual who has not, as of yet, reached the age at which he or she may legally vote for President within the United States of America and its' outlying territories." I apologize.
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:59PM
Wow, Zach. Wow.
T @ Oct 14th 2008 10:53AM
Good to know the results of XBL's "Rock Your Vote" campaign were put to good use.
Speaking of ads, anybody else starting to see the return of Joystiq's "Holy Crap our AD just covered your whole browser window" partners? (Not a hummingbird this time, but still annoying)
Clinton RRoD sept.3 @ Oct 14th 2008 11:07AM
not with ad block
MED @ Oct 14th 2008 1:51PM
Sadly because adblock seems to not work properly with firefox 3 i do know what your talking about.
Saria the Cat @ Oct 14th 2008 11:43AM
I never see these ads people speak of, or even pop-up notifications. Does it have to do with the fact I am using Chrome? Either way, I am happy.
Nick8708 @ Oct 14th 2008 11:50AM
One of those popped up on me last night at work. Those computers are so old, slow, and riddled with security that it nearly crashed IE.