In-game advertising

[Space Voyager]

You're forgetting Spore. And let's all remember Half-Life 2's Steam activation scheme.

 

Plus I'm noticing a trend in some games now, they connect to an central server to download high scores and post yours too.

Always optional, never obligatory.

 

I wouldn't want to be continuosly linked to a game server for a SP game. And I don't play any other.

[Praetoris]

Here's a good quote with some very wise words from tweakguides.com :

 

" Recently there's been a lot of fuss over Battlefield 2142's in-game advertising software. I admit I, like several other sites, incorrectly stated initially that it monitors your general browsing habits, when in reality it only monitors your behavior while playing in-game. I apologize for any confusion, and the correct technical details for how this type of advertising technology works can be found here. Essentially while you're playing, information is collected about (among other things) which in-game ads are in your field of view, from how far away, for how long and from what angle.

 

OK, so what's the harm in that? This is no big deal, we have ads all around us already, right? It's not quite that simple. This issue is different, and has great bearing on the future of gaming in my opinion. To start with, advertising exists to be noticed. Advertisers don't pay large sums of money to have their ads just blend into the background. Using the data gathered above, advertisers will be able to see which ads gain the most attention, and focus on putting up more of them, in more prominent locations over time. There's no other reason for monitoring ad viewing behavior than to customize ads for 'maximum impact'. So if you're expecting ads to remain as innocuous out-of-sight novelties, think carefully about how pointless that would be for advertisers. The gaming experience relies greatly on immersion, and I oppose anything which can ruin that immersion, such as distracting ads.

 

However the most legitimate complaint that gamers should have about in-game advertising is that it currently gives us no benefit whatsoever. We put up with ads on TV and on websites for example because they are what makes TV and websites free to consumers. If we don't want annoying ads, we then pay a premium price for Cable TV, or buy DVDs, or subscribe to a website. But that's not how in-game advertising works. EA Games, which is pioneering this approach, expects us to pay full price for a game like BF2142, in return for the privilege of turning our machines into an ad server while gaming. They reap additional profits while we gain absolutely nothing. EA argues that this model will allow for 'additional support' for the game, yet aren't they the same company which already puts out multiple non-free expansion packs to supplement their revenue, take months to address concerns via delayed patches, and are now also charging gamers to activate cheats in games like Tiger Woods 2007? Doesn't our initial payment for a game already entitle us to proper support and functionality, as it has in the past for so many other great games?

 

I apologize for the long front-page article, as this is not what I normally like to post, but I honestly believe we're on a slippery slope with this new business model that is being forced upon us. Using their market dominance, and given the allure of extra revenue streams, it seems EA is having their cake and eating it too, at our expense. Think carefully before purchasing a game based on this sort of model - there are many games out there with far better gameplay, which can be purchased at a lower price, and receive much better support than these 'ad supported' titles.

 

Update: EA has not yet actually activated the ads in BF2142. This could be to ensure maximum sales during the critical initial release period, where negative word-of-mouth over the ads could harm sales. Note further that some maps in BF2142 have as many as 26 ad billboards/placeholders. "

[Gimli]

Two interesting posts from the S! forums:

 

Post #51 - Out of nowhere this person appears and makes its one and only post to tell us the "truth" about EA. But surprise, surprise, he's also registered on a lot of forums that have something to do with BF2.

 

Post #80 - A good post by one of the staff.

[Praetoris]

Regarding the BF2142 "spyware":

A friend of mine personally called a contact within DICE and asked about it, and I for one trust them (the developers, I don't care much for EA) when they explains that it's got nothing to do with you internet habits or whatever. It's just as quoted above:

 

" Essentially while you're playing, information is collected about (among other things) which in-game ads are in your field of view, from how far away, for how long and from what angle. "

[Matri]

Hmm, raised a very good point. I definitely do NOT want a billboard suddenly blasting out sound and pop-ups while I'm trying to stay hidden and snipe someone. And judging from some of the ads I've been seeing lately, I can almost guarantee you'll eventually find a shockwave ad that absolutely, positively insists on popping up a window in your HUD, blocking absolutely everything while blasting its music at full volume.

 

I can see the headlines now: "Jet crashes, ads hijack HUD."

 

Also, the whole point of allowing advertising in software is to lower costs. Shareware have been doing this for years, and we all know the horror stories of Gator. The point is, advertising within the software allows the consumer to use most, if not all, of a program's features while paying little to none. Look at Eudora. And once you've paid, the ads go away. So until the ad-supported games actually cost a whole lot less than they are now, I'm going to be looking at this very skeptically.

 

And no, 2 dollars off is not an improvement.