EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama

EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama

June 21, 2009

When President Obama linked video games to a sedentary lifestyle in a speech to the American Medical Association last week, Peter Moore sensed a marketing opportunity.

On Friday the EA Sports boss posted a "challenge" to Obama on his official blog. As you might guess, there's an EA product involved:

It may be time for the President and his family to put their Wii to good use and fire up the 30-Day Challenge with EA SPORTS Active.  This is a “game” even the President may not want to “step away” from...

In fact, I know [Obama is] in pretty good shape, but I guarantee the President wouldn’t look quite so smooth walking across the White House lawn to Marine One the morning after his first session with EA SPORTS Active (especially if he does those pesky lunges)! ...

Mr. President, here is my challenge to you: Try EA SPORTS Active and I guarantee you’ll need aides saying “Yes You Can!” to finish your first workout.

Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by jedidethfreak - June 21, 2009 at 11:02 am -0500

Be careful, Mr. Moore.  Barack Obama may declare the need to bail EA out, and fire you.

 

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.

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by killatia - June 21, 2009 at 11:13 am -0500

EA needs no bail out, they're doing just fine. As for the challenge, Obama should take it,

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by Vake Xeacons - June 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm -0500

After all their financial mistakes, poor PR, and NFL lawsuits, I sincerely doubt EA's smelling like greenbacks.

Obviously, this isn't about exercise; it's about selling EA games. EA has no respect for the Wii (which is one reason they're hurting) but it's the one console we know the president has. If we knew Obama had a 360, Moore would have suggested that instead. He doesn't care about the president's health; just think about the bragging rights. "EA: The Executive Decision!"

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by Azhrarn - June 21, 2009 at 4:43 pm -0500

EA probably still turns a healthy profit, NFL games cost peanuts to develop, and make relatively large profits, that player scandle wouldn't have dented their earnings to much.

As for mr. Moore's comments, just a PR stunt, nothing more. This is EA we're talking about here, it's not as if being genuine is something that comes natural EA let alone an EA Executive.

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by jedidethfreak - June 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm -0500

It was a joke.  In case you don't get it, I was commenting on President Obama buying banks and car companies, claiming he doesn't want to run them, then tells them they can't do anything they used to do anymore, even though it can be argued that excessive government intrusion on their particular industry is why they failed in the first place.

 

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.

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by KaylaKaze - June 24, 2009 at 4:23 pm -0500

"it can be argued that excessive government intrusion on their particular industry is why they failed in the first place"

It can be argued, but only very poorly by delusional whackadoodles.

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by ZippyDSMlee - June 21, 2009 at 11:18 am -0500

Death penalty for lobbying or advertising to kids I say!!
Who's with me?!?!

 

I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..

http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by DeepThorn - June 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm -0500

EA, shut up and quit being cheap whores that care more about money than game quality.

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by starsrift - June 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm -0500

 I don't like Moore's games (not a fan of sports games) but I do like his attitude. All of his interviews and such are always amusing, and he really does stand behind his products. 

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by Neo_DrKefka - June 21, 2009 at 8:58 pm -0500

THIS IS TREASON! THIS IS MADNESS HOW DARE HE QUESTION THE GOD PRESIDENT!

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by Lou - June 22, 2009 at 12:02 am -0500

Is that comment your idea of a joke?

No wait scratch that, everything you say is a joke.

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by Wormdundee - June 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm -0500

I wish someone would go ahead and ban Neo_DrKefka, he hasn't made a single comprehensible post on here and he adds nothing of value. He is without merit.

Also, you guys with your blind EA hatred are pretty funny. This is a GOOD thing that Peter Moore has done here. Letting Obama know that not all games are about sitting on your ass, and it kills 2 birds with 1 stone, because it's also good marketing.

Seriously, what's to hate here? Are companies that you don't like not allowed to do marketing anymore? The insane levels of nerd hate here get to me sometimes. 

Re: EA'S Peter Moore Challenges Obama
Submitted by jedidethfreak - June 23, 2009 at 1:04 pm -0500

This.  Just because EA has done some crappy things in the past, doesn't mean this guy doesn't have a point.  Given Obama's seeming inability to comprehend that games are not evil (he seems to think that games are the only thing at fault for lower test scores and increased lethargy), what Moore said should ring true to all of us.

 

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.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Login or register to post shouts