If he want’s people that are good at video games, start looking in basements.
It’s not like he drafted all of them. He inherited soldiers and sailors and airman and marines. Now he want’s to call them ‘warfighters’. Pete is just a creepy child from FOX ‘news’ .
Every time Hegseth pulls this nonsense, all I can think of is Homer taking Bart to a steel mill to show him some “manly men”.
Read the article. This isn’t Hegseth’s idea. It’s from the local base leadership in an effort to improve retention of folks they want to re-up.
Of course, he’s at least partly to blame, in creating the sort of atmosphere where retention is such an issue and where such ‘creative’ thinking is even considered necessary by the rank and file
Sure. But why the violent video game angle?
It’s a popular video game series.
What is the deal with referring to it as “violent”? Not that I’m a spring chicken, but that description sounds like some boomer BS
Not sure if you’re familiar with modern video games, but the violent ones are the popular ones.
The top 3 selling games of this year heavily involve killing people.
That is usually the case. The biggest games usually either involve violence or sports (and sometimes the sports are also violent).
Never played it, but I think you get points for running over people. To me, that’s a bit violent.
I’ve played flight sims and some WWII games. But at least you aren’t trying to kill innocent pedestrians.
That kind of point system hasn’t happened since Carmageddon.That was in the 90s, I think? If you ran over enough people, you got the power to drive on walls.
In GTA, if you run over enough people, the cops will be alerted to your presence and arrive en mass to shoot you. If you persist, they bring out tanks.
GTA is about committing the titular act (stealing cars) and earning money. Sometimes there are heists, or shootouts, and those can result in innocent casualties. But there are no abstract “points;” just in-game currency.
The only thing you get for running people over is a “wanted” status and the cops chasing after you.
The game discourages wanton violence to an extent; rather, it should be done discretely and purposefully, otherwise there can be severe consequences.
Of course, that didn’t stop me from just blowing crap up and living with whatever happens afterward. 
That’s why you steal the fighter jet. When my oldest was little, he stayed a week with my parents. My brother, doing his duty as corrupting uncle, let him play GTA 4. Fang would accidentally run over people, then take them to the hospital.
You can run over a couple of people and be fine. Run over too many, like the outlaw bikers who hang out on the sidewalk in front of the clubhouse, that’s a wanted status.
I suck at piloting in those games. 
I can drive and run and shoot just great. But I always crashed planes. Thank goodness you rarely have to fly in them.
Ooh, but it was fun to steal a tank! Until your wanted status was high enough that the authorities sent their tanks…
I think the disconnect is the existence and extent of violence in video games in the first place.
Noting “points for running people over” is really throwing up boomer red flags. That’s not the primary purpose of the game and is one of those things that sounds terrible because it’s given as an example without any context.
Some modern video games can certainly be violent. But that’s not exactly something new, nor is the choice of this particular game series indicative of anything by itself.
If it helps, it’s like somebody from an older generation giving out $100 Applebee’s gift cards as an incentive not to leave a job. It doesn’t scream “hey, stay in this job” nor does it scream “that’s shady and suspicious as hell”. It’s more of a “well, that’s nice, I guess. Pretty cheap, though” kind of thing.
Nope, what’s throwing up red flags is giving people time off to play video games. Why not just give them time off?
I know it’s stupid, but they should not have suggested time off to play any video games. I’m fine with video games (haven’t played in a while), but if, when I was working, my boss game me time off so I could play video games I would have been very insulted.
And what about people that don’t care for video games in general, or GTA specifically? What incentive do we, I mean they, get?
And really? Four days? That’s it, for a two year commitment? They could at least throw in a bag of cheetoes and a bottle of orange pop. 
Because the GTA series (which I personally dislike) is the biggest thing in video games, and people have been waiting over a decade for the new one to come out. It’s like promising someone an afternoon off in 1999 or 2015 to see the new Star Wars movie.
In other words, it’s naked pandering.
I think you didn’t read it right. They get the 4 days off, and they timed it specifically for the 4 days after the release. They aren’t compelled to use them playing the game, but presumably they would use part of that time to do so.
It’s not written well and it’s mostly a fluff piece. I’d expect better but that’s the state of journalism now. And it apparently works since people are talking about it.
I’d also rather they shifted it a few days to let them have Thanksgiving off, but that’s me
ETA: I also sincerely hope this isn’t the entirety of any re-enlistment bonus package they offer. It seems really cheap
Is there still the groups of Hare Krishnas wandering around? That’s about all I remember from watching a friend play it eons ago.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a “cost savings” to offset money being flushed down the toilet in a pointless war without any end in sight.
I wouldn’t surprise me. A lot of battalions are running low on cash.