Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott Card’s Involvement

Shadow Complex, an adventure game in the vein of Castlevania or Super Metroid, became available for sale last week on Xbox Live Arcade. While the game has garnered impressive reviews, some are upset by the fact that its plot has been derived from the fiction of Orson Scott Card, a known campaigner against gay rights.  Gamers upset by this news are suggesting a boycott to ensure their dollars don’t end up funding Card’s political agenda.

In an opinion piece for Gamasutra, Christian Nutt sees the idea of boycotting a game based on the political views of one of the creative influences as a sign that video games are growing up:

When Shadow Complex was announced, I personally was torn. I’d already long since made the conscious decision to not support Orson Scott Card directly with my money…


What bothers me is people who suggest that it’s a non-issue because the topic of discussion is a game… "Remember back when we were kids and we just enjoyed games?" asks Wizman23.

Yes, I do. But we are not kids anymore… I was 32 on the day [Shadow Complex] became available for download on Xbox Live… I can’t approach things the way I did as a child. That’s not me being self-righteous; I mean that I literally cannot do this…


And that’s why it’s acceptable to talk about this… If we can have meaningful political discussion in other media, we can have it in games.

From all accounts, Shadow Complex looks like a very fun game.  For those who are put off by Card’s involvement, Nutt points to a suggestion offered up at GayGamer: buy the game and make a donation to a gay-positive charity to offset any profit Card may see from the sale.
-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Senior Correspondent Andrew Eisen…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Erik says:

    "His money will go to anti-gay groups, and we know this because he is a chairperson on one."

    And again I repeat: So fucking what?  Every game/movie/book/play/song that you have ever enjoyed quite likely at some point had some bastard involved in it that you disagree with.  The secret is to stop caring.  As I said in response to someone earlier, Would I still play Splinter Cell games if it turns out that Clancey was secretly Himmler in disguise?  Yes, yes I would.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  2. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    It’s an association with him which causes the problem. And hey if you got a reliable ford more power to you. In my experience and every family member and friend I have Toyota, Hyndai (spl?) and other foreign companies have more reliable vehicles and the parts are usually actually cheaper. I know for one thing Ford used to not produce the original parts for their engines for after market sale so that if something broke you had to buy the whole system instead of just the piece that broke. I believe they stopped this practice but frankly I don’t trust american businessmen to look out for the consumers.

  3. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    But they are attached to Card, who has become in a way attached to the game. Chair would have been better off not inviting him write for them if they wanted to avoid this (though I doubt anyone could have seen this whole issue coming).

  4. 0
    Snipzor says:

     This isn’t about the game though, nobody is saying that the views are in the game, in fact we all know that there are none in the game. I bought the game, I should know. But at the same time, OSC still wrote Empire, he must have gotten creative royalties or something like that. His money will go to anti-gay groups, and we know this because he is a chairperson on one.

  5. 0
    mogbert says:

    First off, I previously wasn’t aware that the man was anti-gay, as a number of his books have either overtones or actualy gay scenes.

    Secondly, this is his religious view. His religion teaches that being gay is wrong. It is in his bible. Changing the bible to take it out is one solution others have taken. As a person with a voice, he has stated his religious beliefs. You propose to shout him down for that, and to punish him for stating his religious beliefs. As far as I can see, he hasn’t done anything worse then writing. Has he gone around beating gay people?

    Thirdly, this is the work of many people. Guess what, some of them are likely pro-gay rights. Your boycott is punishing them as well. In fact, there are likely more of the latter. Your action has a net-negative effect. Does this GAME have an anti-gay theme? No? So leave the freakin’ game out of it.

    This boycott, to me, smells like PETA. Trying to get a groundswell of support against something for the smallest and stupidest reasons. Watch the lemmings…

  6. 0
    Erik says:

    See what you realize is that we understand your point of view, we just don’t care.  It comes down to the fact that if the person in question’s personal beliefs don’t directly effect the game then so fucking what. 

    I would play a game made by Jedidethfreak if the game was good enough and didn’t actually include any of his loathesome beliefs.

    And if you look hard enough I’m sure you’ll discover that any game that you’ve ever played was worked on by someone who you find vile.  So if you want to enjoy any media ever, you just need to stop caring.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  7. 0
    Erik says:

    Yeah imagine that.  People have a problem with the products themselves that a company is putting out and it’s a valid boycott.  People have a problem with one of the game’s creator’s beliefs that have NOTHING to do with the game suddenly the boycott is inappropriate.  Wow!  Imagine that.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  8. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    I don’t know what Twitter message you’re refencing, so I can’t address that.  I’m quite aware that no real boycott happened, nor was I under the impression that it would happen.  Even if it did the game is performing too well for it to make a difference anyway.  My main problem is people trying to stir up trouble while willingly ignoring the truth just so they can rail against the game for supporting someone who’s anti-gay.

    I’m not sure what facts you think I’m making up here.  So why don’t we go through those I’ve presented in my posts.

    Chair owns the Empire IP: Fact

    OSC was not involved with the game: Fact

    Empire/Shadow Complex doesn’t contain an anti-gay message: Fact, as near as I can tell based off plot summaries and impressions from people that have read/played through the respective works

    OSC was/is a licensee of the Empire IP: Fact (I actually learned this bit during 1vs100 Live Saturday night, Donald Mustard was the guest and said this)

    OSC does not recieve money directly related to the game: Ok, I’ll give you that this is an assumption, but one I believe a fair one to make.  After all, it isn’t his IP and he didn’t do anything for the game, so it’s reasonable to assume that he recieves no royalties/fees from the game.  Now he did write Empire, which he was undoutedly paid for.  On the books Empire, Shadow Complex and the next book may all be part of the same budget at Chair, but at that point you’re really splitting hairs on where the money comes from and for what its used.  Of course, this is a point that no one can say for certain on either way without being privy to the licensing agreement Chair gave Card anyway. 


  9. 0
    Snipzor says:

     He gets creative royalties or fees, just because Chair let’s out a twitter message that is about as ambiguous as you can get, doesn’t say anything about what is going on.

    The general rules with this is that any time a company uses or gets rights to use fiction is that they pay the author one of two ways. One being creative royalties, the most popular if it is a smaller company, and the other being a straight up fee that they pay to the author for use of the fiction. The fact is that you are trying to trivialize this issue with made up "facts", there is no boycott and OSC gets payed in some way for the use of his work. The fact is that you are more outraged than the not outraged people who are deciding to not purchase the game, and you don’t have any facts to support it.

  10. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    Not as thick as you apparently.  The fact that he wasn’t involved in the game means he didn’t recieve money from it.  He was a licensee of the Empire Universe when he wrote Empire.  One can’t be paid for something they didn’t do.

    People are angry because, frankly, they’re dumb.  They want to be outraged and they refuse to acknowledge the facts that get in the way of their "outrage".

    What confuses me here is the fact that your post in the other thread suggests that you understand this, which leads me to believe you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

  11. 0
    Snipzor says:


    HE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE GAME. The simple fact that he is connected to is means he got paid, listen carefully. Read carefully. People are not happy that Card might get their money, regardless of how miniscule it is. The fact that he gets the money, not about the game, but it is about the money. How thick can you possibly be? Do you even have any bloody idea why people are angry?

  12. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Well, it’s not like there isn’t evidence to support the media’s theory.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  13. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Yes, the cars are different in Canada, as Canadian regulations are different than here in America.  That’s why the cars are different in Europe, Asia and Australia, too.  However, that doesn’t change the fact that asian cars rarely get over 150,000 miles on them, whereas American vehicles, 175,000 is average over the lifetime of the car.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  14. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    1.  Well, you’re experiences may suck, but stat’s don’t lie.

    2.  The association of the game with OSC’s beliefs is based on the fallicy that has been destroyed multiple times on this board.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  15. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    See?  This is exactly what’s irritating me about this whole mess.  Another person refusing to read the information presented to them and continuing to operate under the false assumption that Card had any kind of involvement in the game.

    I’m starting think the mainstream media is right and gamers really are a stupid lot. 

  16. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    No, this isn’t an issue like that at all.  Glenn Beck is using his Fox show and radio show to make those statements that are costing him advetisers.  Beck’s shows are the product and those statements being made on them make them a part of that product.  Thus advetisers don’t want to be seen endorsing a product that sends that message.

    Now, in the case of Shadow Complex you have people getting all "outraged" and calling for a boycott of a product over a message that wasn’t a part of the product.  Like I’ve said, and others as well, before, Card’s views on homosexuality are not part of Empire or Shadow Complex, they were in a completely sepearate piece (an essay on the subject to be specific).

  17. 0
    Gaming Observer says:

    I played the game from start to finish and got all of the achievements.  It was fantastic.  I’m glad that Microsoft, Chair, and Epic got my money, and I wish them well with it.  The game deserves to be a success.  Hopefully they’ll create some DLC or a sequel – I want more.

    I know this issue is about Card, but I thought I’d mention that first, since its relevant as you’ll see later in my post…

    Without having all the information, it’s hard to even know what impact BUYING or NOT BUYING Shadow Complex actually has on the man.  It’s entirely possible that whatever he was going to be paid – he has already been paid – if he was even paid at all – and has no interest in further revenues, in which case a boycot has no practical affect other than to cripple some great game developers without making the slightest bit of difference to your target.

    Of course, there’s always the symbolic value of a boycott, but as others have already said… Card isn’t involved in much of any way with this game, and unless you plan on being inconsistent about this type of protesting you might as well never watch a movie again or turn off your internet.  In other words, if you think fornication is a sin, say goodbye to your KISS collection…

    If it were me, the headline on this article would be…

    "Gamers Propose Questionably Effective Boycott of Critically Acclaimed Shadow Complex Game Over Tangentially Connected Author Orson Scott Card, Despite Clear Danger to Small Developer Chair"

  18. 0
    Ashton says:

    Orson Scott Card is out of his mind, anyway. I once read a piece by him about how homework and studying is a completely useless and archiac form of education, which is a completely preposterous claim. Many of his views are in direct opposition to mine. Still, I’m of the opinion that any personal disagreements with a person ends when I make business transactions with said person, which is what my buying Shadow Complex is.

    I mean, for all I know the woman managing the store I’m buying my groceries from could be an extremist feminazi for all I know, that doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop buying groceries there. I mean, if I avoided everything that went against my values I’d probably be huddled in a corner of an empty room, starving.

  19. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Like others have said, a very likely scenario is that almost all of the products that you buy will likely end up going to a person that is actively pro- or anti-abortion or some other cause that you strongly disagree with. Some product you buy will fund a Democrat or Republican or Communist or Anarchist cause, so why worry about it so much?

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  20. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    As are the many people that won’t buy this game simply because of one guy’s opinion.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  21. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    "Buying Shadow Complex while claiming to support gay rights is a sign of either ignorance or hypocrisy."

    and then

    "I’m willing to admit that I did buy and am enjoying the game"

    Just saying.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  22. 0
    Puck says:

    You’re aware that time passes…?  You wrote this a full eight hours after I wrote my original diatribe, and there were much more focused, bashing opinions up when I wrote what I did.

    Here – by way of example, this is within the first five top-level comments:

    "Fine, be a bigot, see if that stops sales of the game."

    "Just shut up and play the game."

    "This whole debacle is astounding and has become ridiculously petty/hypocritical"

    "They just want to punish the guy for this beleifs. Idiots."

    I’m not even going to go into the bizarre pseudo-science post whereby a noble ex-gay psychiatrist (hi folks, psychiatrists use drugs, not therapy) was banned from the community for his very valid practices, because it’s the kind of bullshit that gets spread in church newsletters, not in scientific journals with actual theory and method behind them.  There are enough rich homophobes in the U.S. that, if it were possible at all to "train" somebody out of being gay, there would already be a foolproof method for it.  I mean one that doesn’t involve electric shocks when the patient gets aroused by same-sex imagery, since that’s been quite popular in the recent past until it got public.

    So, even though there are a few balanced opinions on the site here, I’m still quite ashamed of the outspoken posters who want to stifle others’ views using dimestore science and piss-poor logic.  I’m even more ashamed that a site about gaming & politics can’t mesh the very important issue of gay rights and games well enough to attract commenters who are the least bit educated on the topic.

  23. 0
    Puck says:

    I simply mean that Destructoid, from a semi-anonymous comments perspective, is one of the worse places I can think to support gay rights.  So I was really quite suprised to see a lot of the comments there actually taking the issue seriously – it’s probably because the linked article was well-written.  I did extend that skepticism to the community articles as well, since I was just as suprised to see such a balanced viewpoint on a site that has costume and cake contests featuring its mascot  😮

    And if you can find a copy from a friend, Ender’s Game is actually quite worth a read.  It was written well before Card got his legs under him and a bully pulpit under those, and is a pretty classic and interesting sci-fi tale of a misunderstood boy breaking out of his own boundaries to inadvertantly save everyone.


  24. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Normally it wouldn’t matter to most people. The problem is that he is actively anti-gay. If it was just a belief he had and he didn’t lobby for it this would be a whole different story.

  25. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    I think both groups of people are perfectly entitled to boycott the games. I may argue whether or not the reasons are good ones, but I will never tell someone they are stupid for boycotting. Infact, I would say it’s great, just that I hope they do it for the right reasons and hold their ground.

    I have to admit, what happened with L4D (the SDK coming out 6 months later than promised, and broken at that) pissed me off. I was further unimpressed to find out Valve was working on the second game. But, the team actually does get to choose the next project, and all I really want is either a lower price for owners of the first game or the content from the first game being available in the second.

  26. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Oh, good! Another backlash of retardation from the GP comments section.

    Did you actually read any of the posts or did you skim the first few reactionary ones and decide to call everyone here retarded? I believe that would make you the retard, sir.

    Read ALL THE DAMN POSTS this time. You’ll see, for the most part, people are quite reasonable and many even try to point out a fact missed by most (that fact being Card won’t get to see any of the money).

  27. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Both of the opinions stated in your post are based on misinformation.  First things first, with a few exceptions, American cars are much more reliable than their Asian counterparts.  European cars are a little more reliable, but are much more expensive.  Consumers Digest can back this up.

    I hate to go off topic, but I had to address this.

    I don’t know if American companies sell different cars or something here in Canada, but let me tell you, they DO NOT compete with the Asian and Euro cars here. The American cars rust faster, get worse mileage, and often the parts aren’t even any cheaper. Not to mention they’re American… and I’ve got to be honest, buying American isn’t exactly my idea of a good time or money well spent.

    You want a good car here? Get a Honda or Toyota. They will outlast most other vehicles despite our harsh climate.

  28. 0
    G.A. says:

    I agree and same here, I wasn’t planning on buying that game but now it’s suddenly a whole lot more interesting. The fact that the author of Ender’s Game was involved in the writing involved certainly does grabs my attention

  29. 0
    G.A. says:

    "If one chooses to boycott a game because a single contributor holds a social or political view contrary to one’s own beliefs, then they might as well just give up gaming altogether. The money one pays for any particular game may be going into the tithe plate of a church, or supporting one side or the other of an abortion debate, or funding PETA, or simply paying the bills of someone who voted differently than you in the last election, etc."


    Hell, in most cases it might even go to all of those. Seriously, how many people does it take to make games games? Hundreds usually. Like the Tom Clancy example, if a game director (like say Shigeru Miyamoto or something) were discovered to have a particular belief, would we have reason to boycott? Some people might, and it is entirely their right to do so. However, that would not make it any less ridiculous.

    I think if we turn the situation around, we see just how ridiculous it is. Should people have boycotted Clive Barker’s Jericho when it came out? (For those who don’t know, he’s written many books and gay) I don’t believe they did (I could be wrong), but if they had it would have been just as ridiculous. If he’d started preaching about it it’d be one thing, but he didn’t and OSC certainly isn’t in this case.

    Or how about this, an even better example. Ian Mckellan. Ian Mckellan is not only gay but also a gay rights activist. Should people boycott all three Lord of the Rings movies AND the 3 X-Men movies? The fact that I don’t agree/support his views doesn’t stop me from enjoying the movies he’s in or even being a fan of him. Also, he made much, much more money with just one of those movies than OSC is likely to make through Shadow Complex and probably poured in much more money into lobbying (or whatever). As far as I’m concerned, videogames and movies are meant to entertain. If they do that, then to me it doesn’t matter in the least who made it, directly or indirectly. Now, if it’s directly exposing it’s view in said media form then that’s another issue.

    Put it this way, if you’d never heard of the "offending" person before (whoever it is), would it still affect your buying decision? I think in most cases the answer would have to be only if their views are actually in what you’re buying…I think a lot of people forget the fact that these types of issues are two-way streets; if it applies to one side it applies to the opposite side also…I mean free speech and all that…You can boycott of course, and if a group of people really want to then fine. Doesn’t necessarily mean they should, nor does it keep it from being any less ridiculous…


    Edit: Ender’s Game is (IMO) one of the greatest books of all time 😀 I don’t think someone shouldn’t read it just because of his personal opinions…

  30. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Yeah, I read that Destructoid article; Jim Sterling did a damn fine job of explaining his point. There’s even a retort from a different person that made front page that was also well-worded, thoughtout, and persuasive. Check it out:

    P.S.: Whaddya mean, "Destructoid, of all places!"?! I think they’re a damn fine gaming news site, just as I think Kotaku and GamePolitics are of the same caliber as Destructoid. Yes, people are losing their shit, but they have every right to do so. Some will choose to boycott the game, some won’t, and some may choose to boycott everything OS Card does, including his Ender’s Game novels; it’s their right to do so.

    However, the name-calling is another thing entirely. That we could probably do without.

    P.S.S. My opinion doesn’t really matter on the subject of Shadow Complex: I don’t own an XBox 360 because I don’t believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor, especially if half of all the systems fail in some way ( and due to Microsoft’s continued ignorance pertaining to the 360’s abysmal failure rate. However, I’ve really shown no interest in reading Card’s novels, including Ender’s Game, and after reading a bit more about him, I doubt I ever will…That’s just my two cents.

    P.S.S.S. Sorry for all of the P.S.’s. I probably should’ve just done this all in one go instead of splitting my rant up into different sections. Oops! :-\


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  31. 0
    Elegant says:

    Wow.  Really?  So none of you would ever read Ender’s Game because the dude as issues with the gay community?  I am a pretty liberal guy, but that isn’t going to stop me from recognizing a talented writer. This is really silly. Ugh.  I wasn’t going to buy this game, but I think I will now.  Metroid/Castlevania styled gameplay?  Sounds super sweet. 

    — XboxLive Tag: JuiceLayerJihad

  32. 0
    Erik says:

    You do realize that the story being linked to, though not suggesting a boycott on it’s own, was written in response to people on yet another site who ARE pondering a boycott.  So despite what you think, yes some gamers ARE suggesting a boycott.  Is that so hard for YOU to understand?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  33. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Or it could be because he is SO vocal about it. I don’t mind people who don’t like gay people. Or are uncomfortable. I mind it when they use the power, money and influence they have to reduce gay people to lesser citizens in our society.

  34. 0
    Verbinator says:

    This entire discussion borders on pointless. 

    Games are made by teams.

    The likelihood that the entire team holds a homogenous social or political  position is unlikely.

    If one chooses to boycott a game because a single contributor holds a social or political view contrary to one’s own beliefs, then they might as well just give up gaming altogether. The money one pays for any particular game may be going into the tithe plate of a church, or supporting one side or the other of an abortion debate, or funding PETA, or simply paying the bills of someone who voted differently than you in the last election, etc.

    If this issue matters to you, then you damn well better be checking the ideology of every contributor to every game you buy.


  35. 0
    Snipzor says:

     That’s not the point. Orson Scott Card does get money for the game (Still don’t know if he gets creative royalties) and his views are important because he sits on as a chairperson of NOM (An anti-gay lobbying group) and the money he will get either goes in this group of goes into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which might go on to give money to NOM (To avoid the whole tax thing). There can be as little of it as possible, but when it comes to a man who pretty much makes money for espousing his own stupid bigoted opinion (Rather than writing skills being the priority) pointing out his positions is important.

  36. 0
    Snipzor says:

     I (Along many other readers who have brains) would like to point out that there is no boycott. A boycott would be an outright ban on the game itself. But what is going on here is a question people should ask themselves, as a warning of some sort. "Should I buy a game that might fund Orson Scott Card in the slightest?" is a question even I asked myself, and dammit I felt like shit hours after buying the game. It’s a good game, but should I put entertainment above values? No, we shouldn’t.

    And by the way people, Orson Scott Card gets money, spends it on some anti-gay lobbying. It has nothing to do with the game, or Chair (Although they share a bit of blame because they hide and mask the issue by ignoring it entirely), but rather where the money goes. So when you pull out the argument "Whatever, his views aren’t in the game", I want to slap you across the face really hard.

    Also the title is absolutely sensationalist and unrelated to the story (Even completely misleading).

  37. 0
    Jay13x says:

    I’m just going to stop buying any products entirely because there is probably someone who in some way profits from them that may or may not share my views.

  38. 0
    Stealthguy says:

    Well obviously. Otherwise you’d have to boycott. There is no grey in this world, only black and white.

    …</sarcasm>I read about People saying Gaming as medium is maturing, then I come here and laugh

  39. 0
    fetidchimp says:

    So boycott of secret of monkey island as well then? yawn.

    I can’t keep up with all the boycottin’ so i’m just going over here to not give a shit.


  40. 0
    Puck says:

    "Wow. You state one thing with your quotes but then change your mind later on."

    Yes, hon.  That’s called ‘saying two things in a post.’  I vilified GP for posting an article about gamers boycotting when most of the gamers who’ve written at length on this topic are specifically saying that it’s an individual choice.  Then, in a later paragraph, I listed my individual choice and the reasons for it.

    Got it yet?  Some of us can actually entertain the idea of people making their own choices for their own reasons without giving up the right to share our own.

    "Don’t let the views of ONE person that had ONE role with the game’s creation affect that view, or else you risk seeming like a blind and overly-sensitive biggot yourself."

    Being as it’s my money in my wallet, I’ll do what I like with it, thanks.  And being that the populace of gamers is woefully underinformed of politics and how they affect the human beings around them, I’m going to keep encouraging people to learn about the causes and effects of spending their money in certain ways.  Gamers are smarter than the average bear in many regards, but the younger ones are also pretty prone to a hedonistic mindset of supporting whatever has awesome graphics and plays good, regardless of other factors.  Which is why most of them won’t be affected by anything said on the internet and will just buy the game regardless.

    And yes–to speak to your comparison to Mission Impossible and Scientology–I do know a number of people who refuse to pay money to see anything Tom Cruise is involved with.  It’s not just the factor of having a fraction of the funds seeing the inside of Mr. Cruise’s Xenu-loving pockets.  It’s also the public knowledge of a stigma in Hollywood: if producers know they can choose Tom Cruise to fill a role, or a comparable non-Scientologist actor for about the same price, then, at least in some cases, they’ll choose the latter.  If enough people individually choose to avoid anything to do with Tom Cruise, then Hollywood will acknowledge, just through natural selection, that the risk of being associated with a "sci-fi religion" that financially exploits and arguably tortures its victims/recruits is not worth the cachet of having the name Tom Cruise on the posters for its movies.

    Being famous has the unique advantage of giving your opinion a voice heads-and-shoulders above millions of others.  It also has the unique curse that people will take those powerful opinions as public attacks, and may threaten your livelihood by detaching themselves from anything which might lend money to your coffers, simply because you have a strong opinion with which they disagree. 

    In other words, Card’s bigotry on a public scale is much, much grander than any theoretical gamers’ boycott could ever hope to achieve.

    Or, if it helps, think of it as a value proposition.  If I’m a gamer who loves the look and feel of Shadow Complex and want to support that kind of game, then maybe that’s worth at least $25 of positive karma to me.  But if I’m a gay gamer who is disgusted that wealthy homophobes who don’t even live in California managed to lobby enough money to spread misinformation in that state regarding Proposition 8 such that they succeeded in nullifying the happy marriages of many gay couples there, then even the slightest amount of money going into the pocket of someone who aided that lobbying is worth upwards of $60 of negative karma.

    Thus, in terms of my own desires vs. my own honor and support of fellow freedom-loving Americans, I find Shadow Complex to be a negative value not worth the money and the stress it would cause.

    (For the sake of not sounding so fatalist, I’m willing to admit that I did buy and am enjoying the game, and that I simultaneously donated rather more money than the game costs to the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center.  Not that I believe in buying indulgences for supporting vocal hatred, but my desire to support more Metroidvania style games is pretty strong, too.) 

    Paychecks are just paper, but moral economic choices are complex things; don’t pretend they aren’t.

  41. 0
    thefremen says:

    Kinda funny how people think it’s just fine to boycott L4D2 because the game is coming out way too soon, but when people want to boycott a game over ideological differences with someone involved in its creation that is considered totally inappropriate.  

  42. 0
    thefremen says:

    Read the sequels to Ender’s Game. Even as a 16 year old I realized there was something a bit off about keeping people of different cultures on their own planet.   

  43. 0
    Puck says:

    Ah, okay.  Sorry to involve your name, then!

    And yes, I meant to address: some gamers are proposing a boycott.  But I see GayGamer and even Destructoid as much more likely to become a platform for a political statement than a 300+ post-per-day board like NeoGAF.

    Thanks for your work on the article, all the same <3

  44. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    1. My personal experience with both american and foreign cars tells me otherwise.

    2. It’s not about OSC’s beliefs being in the game, it’s about associatign the game with his beliefs.

  45. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Why? Why is it a bad thing to hold a company responsible for who they associate themselves with? We do it in advertising all the time, in fact 33 of Fox news advertisers recently asked to have their ads removed from Beck’s show because of an issue like this.

  46. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Wow. You state one thing with your quotes but then change your mind later on.

    Buying Shadow Complex does not in any way mean that you support Card’s opinion or share his view. A very tiny fraction (if any at all) of the money in a sale of the game goes to him, most of the money goes to Microsoft or others.

    Your opinion would be the same as me saying that anyone that purchases Mission Impossible 3 actually supports Scientology. Of course that isn’t the case, and although some of our money might possibly go to Tom Cruise (and through him, the Church), most of the money goes to the product that you’re paying for, which is a good movie.

    If the game is good, then buy it. If the game sucks, then don’t. Don’t let the views of ONE person that had ONE role with the game’s creation affect that view, or else you risk seeming like a blind and overly-sensitive biggot yourself. If the whole company took the stance, then that would be a different story, but as it stands, I only see a bunch of whiny kids boycotting the equivalent of the state of Texas because of the views of one town in that state.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  47. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "Sorry, Andrew Eisen, but the titling here is sensationalist cock-up."

    No need to apologize.  While I don’t agree with your assessment (after all, some gamers are proposing a boycott), I didn’t write the title.


    Andrew Eisen

  48. 0
    Puck says:

    Oh, good! Another backlash of retardation from the GP comments section.

    Seriously, folks.  Why is every news site on the planet able to have anonymous commenters talking fairly and rationally about this except GamePolitics?!  The commenters here like to quote the one political book they’ve read in their sigs and then spout whatever thoughtless BS before it.

    And, much as I hate to say it, this time I have to lay the blame on GamePolitics themselves.  Sorry, Andrew Eisen, but the titling here is sensationalist cock-up.  There are some very thoughtful articles on GayGamer, and Destructoid (Destructoid, of all places!) that specifically say these very things:

    "Still, money spent on the game is money in a homophobe’s pocket, and no doubt some of it will be spent on efforts to end legal gay marriage or perhaps research ways to eliminate our "reproductive disorder." We’re faced with fighting a potentially stellar game because some grumpy old man says mean things about us, or indirectly supporting attacks on our rights.  I still don’t have an answer for myself. I think if you’re obviously too disgusted to enjoy the game, avoid it, and speak out. However, if you want to play the game, play it."


    "However, before we ask the question, "Should we boycott Shadow Complex?", we have to ask ourselves this, "Should we boycott anything involving someone whose political opinions we disagree with? . . . My answer to the burning question, as you may have gathered, is no. No, we should not boycott Shadow Complex. But that’s with emphasis on the weWe as an organized unit should not boycott Shadow Complex. Getting up in arms and vilifying the game would put us on the same bigoted level as Card, really. He’s entitled to his opinion, and Chair was entitled to collaborate with him and use his talent as a writer. But that’s not to say you shouldn’t refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about it.  I don’t blame anybody for having reservations about buying this game if it indirectly benefits a man like Card."

    How, exactly, does this qualify as ‘gamers proposing a boycott?’  This is one of the most cool-headed reactions to the idea of opposing a product for the political views that its sales will support that I’ve ever seen.  It’s not like anyone’s proposing a marching on Card’s estate, rousting him from bed, dragging him behind a truck, and leaving him to die. Orson Scott Card, much as I love his early writings, is the loud political force opposing simple human rights by his own choice, by his hateful words in columns, and by his huge donations supporting Proposition 8 and other rights-stripping legislation.  Gay people do not hurt Card.  Card does, in very real ways, hurt gays and gay rights.

    Is it really that hard for some fools here to understand?!  A sale of Shadow Complex literally puts money in Card’s pocket.  Card is an outspoken bigot and will use some portion of the money he makes to lobby against gay rights and support publications which make gay people out to be monsters and deviants.

    Buying Shadow Complex while claiming to support gay rights is a sign of either ignorance or hypocrisy. 

    That’s just how I see it – that’s not me getting in anybody’s face demanding they believe the same things I do.  And yet some entitled boys on this normally-intelligent site are trying to shout down as "bigots" those gays and gay-supporters who don’t want to contribute to a man who is working, with the fervor of a wealthy activist, to hinder and oppose rights they see as natural and affordable under the Constitution.

    It’s called the "free market," dears, and it has a lot of power to sway opinion.  Look it up sometime.

  49. 0
    SinisterInfant says:

    How could someone who wrote so many shower scenes in Ender’s Game hate gays?  Its crazy talk.


    Also sex with worms….I mean Wyrms.  Seriously…..Wyrms has a part where the Heroine has sex with a big crazy wyrm….terrible/awesome

  50. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Zippy, people already boycott the bible because it’s misused.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  51. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Both of the opinions stated in your post are based on misinformation.  First things first, with a few exceptions, American cars are much more reliable than their Asian counterparts.  European cars are a little more reliable, but are much more expensive.  Consumers Digest can back this up.

    Second, as has been posted here many, many times, OSC’s personal views aren’t in this game.  OSC would not be hurt in any way by a boycott of this game, as any money he’d be getting for this game, he would have already gotten.  Choosing not to buy this game solely on the basis of Card’s personal views does not make any sort of political or personal victory, as the person you are fighting wouldn’t be harmed in the least.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  52. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Whats next people boycotting the bible becuse tis misused?

    This is not even directly tied to the person in quesiton so why in the world is this a issue other than for publiscity and sensationalisim….


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  53. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Considering the political viewpoint involved, I’d say more of a Rather/Olbermann style of bullshit.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  54. 0
    gamegod25 says:

    I just find it funny that a game with the backing of such a famous author has almost no story. It’s still worth the $15 imo but still a bit disappointing in that regard.

  55. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    But that’s my entire point, albeit from another angle.  This call for a boycott is born out of disagreement with Card’s personal views and nothing to do with the game or book itself.  The only message that’s being sent here is "We’ll buy your game if we agree with your personal beliefs", and that is some straight up Beck/O’Reiley style bullshit.

  56. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    "Christian Nutt sees the idea of boycotting a game based on the political views of one of the creative influences as a sign that video games are growing up"

    Hmm…no. I think it’s a sign that a whole bunch of people are idiots. Card won’t see any money from this game, and even if he did, the game itself doesn’t share any of his views. Calling for a boycott on this game will hurt noone except the developers who have made a very quality product.

  57. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Actually boycotts have been one of the most effective tools of the gay movement in history. Even when it wasn’t related to gay issues specifically. In fact one of the most well known ones is the Coors boycott. It started actually as gays boycotting Coors in the gay bars in the west coast. This wasn’t because Coors had anti-gay policies but because the teamsters union agreed to support certain gay initiatives in return for gays boycotting Coors (which was treating the teamsters badly). The boycott was huge and actually is only beginning to recede to a point where it isn’t considered a strong boycott today. There are still some gay bars you can go to that don’t (and won’t) serve Coors.

    The effectiveness of boycotts is based on the actual amount of people following them, which is why this one likely won’t have a huge effect. But they can be effective if enough people are involved, and even without big PR support word of mouth CAN do that.

  58. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    To me that says you incorporate new information into your opinion, which is good. If it really varies to that degree though, I wonder how extreme the information you are incorporating is O.o…

  59. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I think people focus too much on how it affects Card. Think more about the message this is sending to developers, that some gamers don’t like this kind of intolerance and hate towards gays, and recognize that while it won’t hurt Card, it might diminish anti-gay messages in games.

  60. 0
    Erik says:

    "If Tom Clancy was secretly Heinrich Himmler in disguise, would it still be OK to buy Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell knowing that?"


    I find the political leanings of the television station Fox to be loathesome, but that isn’t going to stop me from watching The Simpsons.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  61. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Hmm, this is a weird split for me. On the one hand I support anyone’s right to propose or support a boycott against something because of their beliefs, I mean we all do it, just we don’t term it a boycott. I don’t buy used games from anywhere if I can still get them new somewhere. I don’t boycott used games, I just don’t buy them. I also don’t buy american brand cars (most specifically Chevy and Ford) because I feel they are more likely to break down. I don’t try to boycott them though.

    I think the difference is that in one instance it’s a single person making a choice. Boycotting suggests a larger group. Now it’s obvious because of the discussions going on that a large ENOUGH group to be noticed is not purchasing the game because of the views of someone who is involved in it. I’ve seen several comments from people on here about the used game comments some CEOs are making along the lines of "I won’t be buying their games anymore" and suggestions to do the same. I really see it as the same thing, just different issues and viewpoints.

    Personally I don’t have a 360. If I did I wouldn’t purchase this game. I would inform all my friends who I feel might agree with my opinion about this one man’s comments and actions about them and let them decide their own actions in relation.

    At the end of the day though, someone is going to buy the game, and no one will not have the option to. So because of that, I support the people who are boycotting. They are using their market given rights and freedom of decision to exercise what little influence they have. It might not harm the guy who made those comments, but it does send a message to developers that that kind of intolerance of homosexuals is not accepted by a group of gamers, and that if they want that group to buy their games, they need to be tolerant.

  62. 0
    thefremen says:

    If Tom Clancy was secretly Heinrich Himmler in disguise, would it still be OK to buy Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell knowing that? According to everyone here and on every game blog, yes. Ya know, because even though Orson Scott Card’s vision of a utopia is a universe where segregation is taken to new levels and homosexuality is outlawed it doesn’t mean that the people he worked with agree with him in any way.  

  63. 0
    cppcrusader says:

    The whole idea of this so-called boycott is ludicrous.  Everyone seems to be thinking that Card sees any money from this game, despite numerous reports otherwise.

    Card did not create the Empire universe.  Chair created it, Chair owns it.  Card was offered the chance to write both the novel and the story of the game, but obviously he only went with the former as Peter David penned the story of the game.  He is a licensee of the IP.  He had zero involvement with the game.  Epic/Chair have only used his name in connection with game for marketing purposes to bank off of Empire and Ender’s Game.

    What astounds me is how gamers, hell even developers, choose to simply ignore this point despite it being reported all over the place.  Even in the original article itself on Kotaku that started all this "outrage".  Instead they’re all choosing to kick and scream about Card’s stance on Gay Rights and acting all self righteous by saying they won’t buy the game because they don’t want their money going to him, all while ignoring the fact that it wouldn’t anyway.

    If people want to have a Gay Rights debate that’s all well and good, though personally I don’t even consider the idea that there’s anything to debate about (in case that wasn’t obvious I’m very much on the for side of the argument).  However, to turn some random person’s woefully uninformed opinion into a boycott centered around an issue that, 1) isn’t event related to the game itself (as near a I can tell there’s nothing involving Gay Rights in SC and I’ve been told it’s the same for Empire, I may be mistaken though) and 2) is factually wrong, is just plain idiotic.

    To continue calling for a boycott while willfully ignoring the facts and having little debates not only makes you look foolish, but also negates your arguments in your little debates no matter how well eloquently spoken.  Keep the "outrage" in check people.  There are things in the world to truly feel outraged over and this is not one of them.

  64. 0
    SS says:

    funny thing but some days i’m vehementaly anti-gay and some days i am the opposite.  Some days i’ll get really disgusted with homophobes and some days i’ll agree with the homophobes and say that being gay is a disease.

    yeahhh… kindoff off topic

  65. 0
    Zerodash says:

    The trouble is, this and every game is made by more than just one person. In this case, I would bet an employee of Chair (the developer) would feel the economic hurt of a boycott more than Mr Card would.

    Also, unless you have no real opinions/beliefs, there are guaranteed to be people who offend your values behind every product and service out there…

  66. 0
    Neeneko says:

    I think much of that comes down to picking your battles.

    If one cared (and acted) on everything, life would be pretty much impossible.  But acting on a few things still sends a social message.    Thought TBH I question how effective boycotts are unless you have a really good PR company working for you to make it look like you are dangerous.

  67. 0
    V4nI114 Ic3 says:

    while i dont personally agree with campaigning against gays, how many games have the people who are suggesting the boycott bought that are degrading to and objectify women? how many games have they bought, and continue to buy, that are developed by people who have sexually harassed women?  that are produced by people who are abusive to minorities?

    how many of the boycotters play the call of duty games? support the troops, even though some of them participate in anit-gay hate crimes?  dont ask, dont tell, or well beat you senseless with a soap filled sock.

    protesting is a funny thing.  lots of people protest for a particular cause or another, yet almost 99 times out of 100, they are perfectly fine with some other injustice that goes on in the world.

  68. 0
    Sai says:

    Remember when a white man couldn’t marry a black woman, but it was perfectly legal for him to marry within his own race? Yeah. I mean just what was people’s problem with that? I guess a "special right" was "created" when we allowed interracial marriage too?

  69. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I do not have the right to marry the person I am in love with as you do. Therefore our rights are not equal. Right after slavery ended in our country black people got theri own schools and water fountains too.

  70. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The problem with the "denying rights" argument as it relates to gay marriage is that it doesn’t apply.  Gay’s don’t have the right to marry someone of the same gender.  Do I, as a straight man, have the right to marry another man?  No.  I have the right to marry a woman.  If I were gay, I’d still have the right to marry a woman.  By allowing gay marriage, a right would be "created."  Everything would still be equal, as straight people would also be granted the right to marry someone of the same gender, but there is no inequality now.  At least, no inequality that wouldn’t still exist if gay marriage was legal, only on the other side.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  71. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    Woah! No wonder all the henchmen in Shadow Complex are all dudes.

    And "Lucius"? That’s the gayest supervillian name I’ve yet to hear. It all makes sense now! /s

    But seriously, I see a Penny Arcade comic coming.

  72. 0
    Sai says:

    Technicalities aside I asked "would they sound crazy?" The idea of overthrowing the country over something like that sure sounds crazy to me. My point is people tend to see nothing wrong with railing against gay marriage rights and yet they don’t think about what it would sound like if "gay mariage" was replaced with a different subject.

    I was asking is it okay to have laws denying rights to other people just because they don’t have the same outlook as you. For example again, because people like Orson Scott Card believe in strict gender roles should we pass a law saying a woman has to quit her job before she can obtain a marriage lisence? What about denying marriage rights to infertile people because a large majority believes marriage requires having kids? Hell maybe we should deny people the right not to go to church because a vast majority of Americans believe it’s wrong.

  73. 0
    JDKJ says:

    "It is well within our Constitutional rights to overthrow the government if we as the people feel that it does not have our best interests in mind."

    That sounds like it’s subversion or treason or some such criminal activity which will quickly land your ass in federal prison if you even so much as try it.

  74. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    What if someone said they thought alcohol was morally wrong and lifting prohibition was the government willfilly combating good, sober society and so they would be justified in overturning said government? Would they sound crazy then?

    Absolutely not. It is well within our Constitutional rights to overthrow the government if we as the people feel that it does not have our best interests in mind.

    If the majority of the people in the US believed that lifting prohibition was the wrong thing to do, they are right to call for an overthrow of government.

    Same goes for everything. It was well within the rights of the citizens of the Southern states to arise and seek removal from the Union over many reasons chiefly among them the right to own slaves. It was well within their rights to resist the Federal government’s efforts to force them to stay in the union. It is well within the rights of many modern day Southerners to maintain that belief.

    It is well within the right of people to express and act on the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The yhave a constitutional right to have that belief and petition their government to enforce that belief. They also have a right to rise up against a government that does not act on that same belief.

    Whether acting on any of these beliefs is ethical or morally right is up to debate.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  75. 0
    Sai says:

     What his point that gay marriage personally threatens his idea of manhood and so no one should be allowed to have it?

    His reasoning is not coherent. Just because people have different views than you on something doesn’t mean they should be denied it. Not everyone agrees with his idea on gender roles either but should we then deny marriage to working women? What if someone said they thought alcohol was morally wrong and lifting prohibition was the government willfilly combating good, sober society and so they would be justified in overturning said government? Would they sound crazy then?

  76. 0
    Duffy says:

    Try reading the accused’s entire article instead of the paraphrasing opinion of another person that takes it out of context next time. While I don’t agree with all OSC views I can definately see his point and his theoretical eventual outcome. And his reasoning is at the very least interesting and coherent as opposed to rambling and hate filled as people appear to be impying.

  77. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    Yep.  As far as the law goes, have it be only civil unions, and give them to both straight and gay couples.  Then all the churches’ squabbling over gay marriage can be among themselves.  Some churches are against it, some churches are for it, and people are free to choose which kind they want to attend.  Everybody wins.

  78. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Except the ones that do exist are the ones he pointed to.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  79. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    That kind of gets at what my solution to the gay marriage debate would be.  Leave "marriage" solely to the churches.  The only thing any couple, hetero, homo, or whatever, can get from the government is a civil union.  That way the government is treating everybody equally, and the churches are free to bicker amongst themselves about "the sanctity of marriage" or whatever, without involving the rest of us in it.

  80. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Another example: The  government here made a law against discrimination, you cannot deny something to someone based on their race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.

    Result: Companies avoid the best as they can black, women and gays to avoid being sued for stupity, or they plainly hire all gays that ask a job (because if you deny you may get sued for discrimination). Inside the companies that hire all gays, there are a hate between the gays and non-gays because the non-gays believe that they are getting fired (And they are actually getting fired) to give space to gays get hired. The gays get upset with all the anti-gay people that are created from that situation and press it too.

    Oh man, this is a MAJOR problem in Canada. Minorities and gays get preferential treatment in schools and workplaces across the country. I know it’s the government’s fault for this, but many people blame the communities themselves, and nationalism and racism are on the rise.

    To be honest, in many cases these people bring it on themselves. I was once told by a Lebanese girl she wouldnt’ date me because her parents wouldn’t agree with it (because I’m Canadian). You can only imagine how much this enraged people. I have many other examples, and I can safely say the most racist and offensive people in the country are minorities, as they flex their muscles and know they can get away with it due to the laws protecting them from the majority.

    It’s a shame, because I have also met many people who came here for a better life and are really on the ball. Seriously need to be a bit pickier about who we let in though, damn. I’m not really sure what triggers the stupidity of people, but Canada suffers the same problems as Brazil.

  81. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    And on the marriage thing in the US marriage is the legal civil union term. Heterosexual couples married outside a religious institution are still "married". They just aren’t "married" in the eyes of any church. I can’t comment on where you are since I don’t know where that is.

    Here in America we also value equality, which as a country we long ago decided seperate but equal was not equal, so for us based on our own precedents, civil union =/= marriage.

  82. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I apoligize about the law point. I am reading from the US so when I read "the government here" I assume US.

    As for the brazil thing, I tend to try to look at psychology on a global scale. Unfortunatly I feel that in a lot of regions psychology is more affected by religion and personal opinion then actual medicine.

  83. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Actually it doesn’t. There are very limited situations in which certain protections have been expanded to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". Many of the discrimination laws have not been expanded thus far.

  84. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    A lawsuit is different. You can file a lawsuit against anyone for just about anything. Actual law (as in broke a law) doesn’t have federal protection for homosexuals. Yet.

  85. 0
    Speeder says:

    Btw: I know re-read your text, and your second point was exactly (altough in other country) I was talking about:

    Here too, if you fire someone and that someone accuse you from firing him because he was guy, even if he has no proof, this will drag you into a lawsuit, and lawsuits are expensive, thus companies deliberately avoid hiring gays to avoid such lawsuits, making the situation worse, instead of better (and like I said, companies are also avoiding hiring any "minority" to prevent such lawsuits).


  86. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re second point is totally wrong.  Federal protection DOES exist for GLBT, as anyone who considers themselve among the GLBT is a protected minority.  Therefore, all laws pertaining to protected minorities, such as assistance prefrence and other minority protections, pertain to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  87. 0
    Sai says:

     For one thing, allowing legal marriages for gays doesn’t effect a Christian’s life in any way, they’re still allowed to think gay marriage is wrong, but by not legalizing it you’re infringing on the beliefs of people who don’t think it’s wrong. Talking strictly about my country, the United States, marriages are a legal institution. Sure you can have Christian wedding ceremonies in a church but that doesn’t make you legally married, a signed paper from the government does, so the government already defines marriage and its rights and benefits.

    Secondly anti-discrimination laws are important because a company or housing complex or what have you could easily deny service based on prejudices otherwise. A private institution like a church isn’t effected by these things, but if a church wants to own a business that business is subject to the laws of their country whether they like it or not. 

  88. 0
    Speeder says:



    Quoting myself, twice:


    "For example, in Brazil…"


    "Another example: The  government here made a law against discrimination…"


    See? I am not talking about the US.


  89. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    You’re wrong on a few points:

    1. Religions in America are not forced to accept gays period. The laws governing anti-discrimination do not extend to religion thanks to that pesky 1st amendment.

    2. Gays are not given preferance in the workplace. There is no federal protection for sexual orientation, and only a few states have enacted such measures. These do not include the same "ratio" laws that govern hiring of gender and racial minorities, the laws only protect homosexuals from being fired and require proof that they were fired for being gay.

    3.  The Ex-gay movement has been deemed detrimental by the APA because it has been shown through multiple uninterested party studies done by the APA that the "treatments" either don’t work, or are simply tools which cause the person to supress their natural urges. This can lead to things like depression and suicide. Every anti-gay "treatment" regimine has patients who have come out against it because of cruel and unusual practices, and the APA regards the idea of these treatments as harmful to a persons psyche and well being.

  90. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    It’s not that they’re refusing to support Card.  In fact, does anyone know if his compensation is even tied to the number of sales of the game?  This may have no effect on him anyway.  Anyway, they are refusing to support everybody at Chair, Epic, etc. who contributed to this game (at least some of whom are almost certainly *gasp!* gay), all because of a rather weak connection to some guy they disagree with.  The story is merely in the same universe as a book Card wrote.  As far as I know, Card didn’t have anything to do with writing the story for the game itself.

    Even if he did, this is absurd.  Just about any major game will have somebody working on it who you will not agree with.  The larger the dev team, the more certain this becomes.  Card simply happens to be high-profile enough that people know about him and his views.  But if you truly believe that it is somehow immoral to buy a game that was worked on by someone you disagree with, does ignorance of such people working on other games let you off the hook?  Besides, I don’t understand why people get so hell-bent on eradicating opposing opinions.  Diversity of thought is just as important as any other kind of diversity.

    If the game itself actually expressed anti-homosexual messages, or if sales of the game contributed to some kind of gay-bashing organization, that would be different.  In that case, I would have second thoughts about buying it, too.  But it doesn’t, and this whipped-up "controversy" is asinine.  It just makes the boycotters seem like oversensitive, out of touch fools, depriving themselves of an awesome game for a ridiculous reason.

    And please don’t trot out the "nobody is obligated to buy it" strawman.  I’m not saying anybody has to buy the game.  I’m criticizing what I see as an overreaction and an absurd reason for not buying the game.  If you were going to buy it, but Card’s involvement convinced you not to, that’s nonsense.

  91. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    What? If you didn’t wish to buy the game, you wouldn’t boycott it.

    Otherwise it wouldn’t be a boycott; it would simply be disinterest. There is ALWAYS motive behind a boycott.

  92. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    Exactly.Those who engage in a boycott are exercising their right to free speech by encouraging others to join them in refusing to purchase a particular product or service. Each potential buyer decides on his own whether or not to join the boycott. There’s no coercion involved.

  93. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    A boycott doesn’t force anyone not to buy. The boycott can’t stop you from buying. It does send a message to the makers of the game and other developers. Now if you want to argue against being able to send that message it’s you perogative, but I doubt you’ll garner much support.

  94. 0
    Icehawk says:


    Dude do own a dictionary? 

    Do you know how to use it? 

    Look up the word.  "Boycott"

    verb (used with object)

    1. to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.

    Explain to me how that idea fits in with letting the buyers make they own choice? 

    I would be like forming a picket line around a business then trying to claim that you were Not there to interfere with thier business. 

    One person (or a few the article does not say) seem to have a problem with Cards gay beliefs so are trying to punish the guy.  The game itself is acutally neutral in this (ie it itself did nothing wrong to anyone nor apparently has any gay bashing or somesuch) so why boycott it?  Go pickit Card’s house or something if you have a problem with him. 


  95. 0
    Icehawk says:

    How?  The equation has not changed.  Anyone has the right to attempt to sell whatever (that is not illegal).  Buyers have the right to buy whatever (or not). 

    Its the person that is running around trying to tell buyers they should not buy a thing because it offended them (and not the buyer) that I have a problem with.  Twisting that to claim that the seller cannot/should not sell becuase it offended the above mentioned person does not change anything. 

    Democracy.  If I want to buy or sell it is my right as long as it is not illegal.  The choice to buy is up to the individual and not someone with a rash to itch. 

    Post edit 

    The attempt to sell is a right which should not be denied. 

    The sale itself is NOT however guaranteed. 

    Stop calling for a boycott and let the buyers decide. 


  96. 0
    Icehawk says:

    Could you be Just a bit more obtuse?  I mean you almost made sense. 

    Nothing personal btw. 

    You twisted that neatly and made it nonsensical.  Right to sell?  Anyone has the right to attempt to sell whatever is not illegal and if they work within the local mores (ie place, time etc).  Not like someone is running around ripping money out of stangers hands and forcing this title on them. 

  97. 0