Iran Bans Battlefield 3

November 28, 2011 -

Iran has banned Battlefield 3 from being sold in the country because it depicts a U.S. military assault against the city of Tehran using tanks and aircraft. This news comes from the Iranian IT magazine.

"All computer stores are prohibited from selling this illegal game," said an unnamed deputy with the security and intelligence division of Iran's police in a statement carried by the Asr-e Ertebat weekly.

A Tehran-based IT union has also warned all shops that sell games to abide by the ban. This is the first time an official ban on the game was reported, but some computer store owners said that they never stocked the game in the first place because they anticipated the crackdown on it.

"I do not have any copy of the game," a shop owner who requested his name not be used told the Associated Press.

He adds that Iranian police overseeing public places have "raided (some shops) and arrested owners for selling the game secretly" even before the ban became public.

The Fars news agency further adds that the game had prompted an online protest by a group of "Iranian youths."

"We understand that the story of a videogame is hypothetical ... (but) we believe the game is purposely released at a time when the US is pushing the international community into fearing Iran," the group said in an online petition. That petition has 5,000 signatures.

Source: AP


Comments

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

To those of you saying Iran is horrible in this, remember Six Days in Fallujah, where a minor outcry from people who had no clue what the game was really about actually caused it to stop being made.

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

This should really hurt EA. I mean I hear they were betting the farm on profits of this game from Iran.

Fiction is fictitious Iran. Get with the millennium...

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

I'm no fan of censorship but I can almost understand this. Iran has been living with the threat of an American invasion for some time now and if I were them I sure as shit wouldn't want my countrymen sending money to a company in a country that wants to bomb me, especially when the game depicts me being bombed.

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

I recommend you don't play MW3 then. America gets invaded.... Russian Army profits.

Again I comment of BF3 and MW3... Fiction is fictitious.

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

America lives under no threat of invasion and EA is an American company. That automatically throws off the comparisons. Although I will take your advice seeing as I decided not to play it when the Infinity Ward team got dismantled.

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

Considering there's been a very real war going on with the two countries in the game, I can see where this ban is coming from.

I wonder if they would accept a version of the game without the single player aspect? It's the multi-player that people buy Battlefield for, and I don't believe the zones in multi-player are nearly as specific. I think they're between the "Russian Union" and the US, anyway. Maybe EA/DICE could even offer a discounted price since a portion of the game would have been cut.

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

That's actually a pretty good idea.  Plus, if they released a discounted multiplayer-only version, they'd probably get larger sales numbers overall, too, since a lot of people don't even play single player.  Somebody should start up a petition or something, I could see that being good in multiple directions.
:thumbsup:

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

Shame on you Iran.  Shame on you.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Iran Bans Battlefield 3

Why "Shame on you", Andrew? Banning a game means no innocent youths will be harmed by playing the game because there is no possible way to get the game! Right?!

Ooops... *Takes my elbow off the sarcasm button*

Sorry.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameohh, gods that game is pretty, just not my style these days07/29/2015 - 11:49pm
Andrew EisenUbisoft's Child of Light.07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
MattsworknameEnjoy man, Im gonna be playing split second myself07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
Andrew EisenSorry. That just slipped out. Off to play.07/29/2015 - 11:43pm
Andrew EisenWords have meanings, people! Use the damn dictionary! They're online! They're free! Arrggghhhh!07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Andrew EisenThis is just depressing. I'm gonna go play video games.07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Mattsworknameproliferation of the whole "internet movment" thing, people dont debate, they try to attack and go after peole to shut them down, casue it's easier then trying to debate the issues07/29/2015 - 11:39pm
MattsworknameWhen you break it down, what it is is the shifting of the media lanscape and how it effects news sites and other groups. once upon a time, you could have run that same article and it would have created debate, not online campagns, now, cause of the07/29/2015 - 11:38pm
MattsworknameCall it waht you wil, but thats how its viewed, not just by me, but by just about EVERYONE right now. Media, new networks, they dont' want to call it what it is, soe they call it "accountability"07/29/2015 - 11:34pm
Andrew Eisen"Gamasutra... had to pay" Yes. That's EXACTLY what it was. "Accountability" is and always was horse poop.07/29/2015 - 11:29pm
MattsworknameSo to speak07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
MattsworknameThats why this happened, you get people who felt hurt, marginalize, bettrayd, or otherwise offended, and they don't actually look at teh facts, they just attack and try to get there Blood for Blood07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
Mattsworknamefalse. Weather you think the article was right or not, there was a large group who felt taht gamastura and the other media sites had to pay for there actions, weather they deserved it or not07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenTrying to yank advertising over a single opinion piece on a site that I would bet money most of the offended (if you will) didn't read, is no more an attempt at accountability than the Brown shooting's subsequent riots.07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameMy point andrew is that it's not about them, its about the people responding to the situation. THe brown shooting was eventually shown to be completely justified, but the "Black lives matter" meme kept on rolling despite all it's intiall claims being07/29/2015 - 11:26pm
Andrew EisenDude, you're comparing an opinion piece with someone who was shot to death. Gamasutra and Alexander already were accountable for the opinion piece in question.07/29/2015 - 11:25pm
Mattsworknamekinds of events. nor has it stopped them from being asshats in my opinion, but in there view, they have to hold someone accountible for recent events, so they are doing what they think they must, even if it's based on falsehoods07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
MattsworknameAndrew: It's really a matter of context for the people involved. For example. The "Black lives matter" thing is based on an entirely false account of events in the brown shooting, but that hasnt' stopped it from triyng to hold Polititcians accountable for07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
Andrew EisenWouldn't surprise me. A lot of words' actual meanings escape many people on the internet.07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
Andrew EisenSo, "they must be held accountable" means "we must hurt them for publishing an opinion piece we don't like."07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician