I buy my video games to escape the real world not to be forced into watching any political add from any party. The fact that Obama feels the need to invade my video games makes me not want to vote for him.

I hate how he claimed that all hardcore gamers do not watch much tv or read alot. Couldn't he have said "alot of them don't...", it seems that the area of videogames and those who play them are the only area where sweeping generalisations are ok.

Tim, I don't think it's that incendiary a comment. Firstly, it's not clear whether the demographic he's talking about is "males 18-to-34" or "hard-core videogamers". Secondly, it's a fact that both groups -- particularly the latter -- are getting harder to reach through traditional advertising on television or in the print media because videogames compete for their leisure time. That's what he was getting at. And you'll note that technically, he's not talking about books, since they don't sell advertising. So we could theoretically all have our noses in Jane Austen and Tolstoy novels and it wouldn't affect what the analyst said. :)

But, yeah, it's a little awkward to claim that we don't read or watch TV. There are still plenty of TV shows and magazines where we can be easily targeted. In fact, it's pretty easy to reach us geeks. Just run ads on Battlestar Galactica and buy pages in EGM. You're good to go! But even then, games are sort of a third type of media for the 18-to-34 male demographic.

A lot of gamers I know, myself included, do watch TV shows but can't be advertised to through them (at least not without intrusive in-show methods), since we either watch them on DVD or, um, acquire them through other methods. (I do the DVD thing. Really.)

And it's true that I don't read much that would have advertising in it (books, mostly).

I guess you're right Tom, the statement was less clear-cut than I took it to be. After a few years of "Haven't you grown out of games yet?", I guess I have become too easily offended!

Well, while he could have worded it a bit better IMO, I think the analyst did have a point, which Tom basically spelled out above. Myself personally, I watch very little television, especially since most of the shows I watch, I can watch online, and actually do, mainly to avoid commercials, but also for other reasons. Pretty much the only things I watch on TV are football and random shows that just happen to be on when I have nothing else to do or am bored with video games (and yes, for those who don't know, it is quite possible to burn yourself out on video games). As for reading, I don't read too often, mainly because I have to be in the right mood or frame of mind to really get into a book, even if it's a really good one. Currently, I'm reading Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, and, even though I don't have it with me, am about 3 books into War and Peace by Tolstoy. Obviously not prime campaigning targets. However, as was mentioned above, if ads were placed in magazines such as EGM or PC Gamer, or (dare I say) even Playboy or Hustler, there's a much higher chance I'd see them, and possibly even react to them. With that being said, I think the fact that his campaign is targeting younger voters through video games says a lot: that he is in touch or would like to be in touch with the younger (and quite important in the future of our nation) crowd (which would make sense, since he's around the same age or younger than a lot of the parents of said crowd); that he apparently has no issue with the video game industry as a whole, and perhaps even embraces it (which unfortunately cannot be said about his one-time rival Hilary Clinton); that he's trying to reach out to an age group who statistcally hasn't been very active when it comes to voting, at least comparitively and get them involved in their own futures; etc, etc. I for one think it's a fantastic idea and fully support him and his staff on the idea.

And @ Silver: I hardly think that a billboard that blurs by in a couple seconds or a poster on some wall in the background constitutes as "invasion"; chances are you won't even really notice it, and even if you do, you'll probably just shrug it off and think nothing of it, therefore it won't affect your enjoyment of whatever game you happen to be playing very much, if at all; and really, if you're going to NOT vote for someone, make sure it's for a good reason, such as their stance on REAL issues that actually AFFECT us (and by us, I mean THE WORLD), and not because you happen to see their face for a couple seconds on your screen while you're geeking out on a video game. That's like saying you won't vote for him because he's too tall. It really has no bearing on anything.

Is it true that Obama is in favor of redistributing exp. points to make Warcraft fairer for those who don't play as well? I thought I heard him say that.

You're fairly consistant about putting up SPOILER ALERTs so I think I'll cut you some slack that you didn't put up a HYPOCRISY ALERT here considering Obama mentioned that he wants kids to get away from the video games and get out in the community or whatever he has planned for them.

Hey Tim, don't forget people who smoke weed. You can make sweeping generalizations about them and even steal their lives and throw them in some prison where gang rape is the official sport. And then you can act self-righteous and say that you're "helping" them (though there is not a single death attributed to cannabis in all of recorded history, it has proven not to be a gateway drug (that's alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine), and it is not in the least addictive), or making the neighborhood a "better place" (though the prohibition is the thing which gives cannabis to gangs as a source of wealth, which causes violence. Liquor is much easier to make than cannabis, and I don't see the crips running moonshine (trust me - weed takes time and care, liquor takes sugar and a couple of big pots left out in the woods to stew). You see, it's really okay to bash ANY minority - as long as it's not blacks or women.

Oh, and if I saw an Obama ad in a game I'd have to sell it. I mean, wasn't charging $60 for a lite version of a game that woulda been $50 on the pc (where it'd have better graphics, run better, and have a thriving mod community with 100x more content than came in the original box) enough? Since when did they have the right to make their money two or three times on us? And to do it by spying on us and modifying our game based on our location. Well, if I run across one in FarCry at least I can have some fun torching them :D

Oh, and just to clear things up; first, gamers are on the net a disproportionate amt of time compared to other groups, so the reading thing is pretty dumb. If they mean reading as in books... well, I haven't seen many advertisements in my paperbacks :D But I would always prefer a good book over spending the same amt of time on a game or a movie.

BTW, does anyone else remember Obama suggesting that they accept public financing rules back when it appeared he'd have a hard time getting funding? Then McCain accepting the limits while Obama went nuts sucking every schlong he had to to get cash?

Or perhaps when he said that you should spread the wealth?

Or when Biden said that Obama being elected would pretty much guarantee an international crisis? (b/c, you know, he's WEAK).

And is anybody else noticing that even LIBERALS now are complaining that the media is unfairly biased? You hear more criticism of Palin's clothing than you do Biden's ridiculous lies and outbursts or Obama's recurring socialist slip ups, and reporters actually boast that they like to place the worst smear articles possible when the McCain campaign mentions the media bias.

We haven't been able to trust the politicians for a long time, nor the financial institutions, and now the press has become so blatantly corrupt that even the Liberals who they campaign for don't like it any more. We might well see the second revolution within our lifetimes... hopefully the next iteration of America will last a bit longer before it falls again into beuracracy and socialistic interference.