Hellgate Beta's In-Game Ads Raise Eyebrows 424
ari wins writes "IGN.com has up a post discussing the new EA/Flagship game Hellgate: London, and the in-game advertisements it includes to facilitate targeted marketing. Though ads in games aren't exactly new, some Beta testers are objecting to their apparently off-putting presence. Users have also noted that accepting the game's EULA means you submit to the collection of 'technical and related information that identifies your computer, including without limitation your Internet Protocol address, operating system, application software and peripheral hardware'."
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:1, Insightful)
Marketing Has Succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)
ADs are not 'right' in any context, especially when you are paying for the product.
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things:
1. Astroturf does not feel like real grass. Hell, it doesn't look like real grass. Don't Astroturf.
2. You forgot something: denial. Hell, it can't be the ads, right? It must be the game is bad, despite all those gamers craving to see the targeted ads.
Re:Marketing Has Succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)
* = WHERE APPROPRIATE. Games like WoW do not need billboards in them.
But I agree on the paying aspect. If you pay, you don't see ads(unless you want to).
And, make the game cost less due to the ad revenue.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:2, Insightful)
It's still our world, he's just thinking its the late 80's or early 90's when the stores did this. I once even bought a game at Electronic's Boutique then when they wouldn't take it back, I took it back to Babbages and they were cool with it.
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:4, Insightful)
The law generally trumps "store policy"... Though you may need to sue to get your $50 back (most companies won't even show up in small claims court, practically a slam-dunk).
Also, many states have a VERY useful law relating to this, usually called something like "Buyer's remorse". They don't always apply to such low-priced items, though, so do your homework before you waste your money.
Finally, never forget the power of "making a scene". If you loudly (but not threateningly!) make a fuss over them refusing to take something back (best to wait for the busiest, most crowded part of the day), they'll usually do what you want just to get rid of you.
Spying (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind in-game ads, as long as they're inobtrusive.
I do mind giving EA and Flagship blanket permission to examine everything on my computer. READ what their "agreement" says -- they can mine your computer for whatever data they want, and give/sell it to whomever pays for it.
I keep sensitive business data, covered by NDAs, on my computer; I don't want anonymous strangers mining through my music, documents, source code, and data. Quite simply, the Hellgate: London agreement is completely unreasonable and dangerous.
Anyone who supports Free Software should understand the principles involved here, and refuse to accept Hellgate London on their computer.
Re:Just give in.. Sooner or later you will anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't cry wolf if there's no wolf around.
Ads in a game you pay for=Stealing (Score:2, Insightful)
A $50 game that I have to accept ads and spyware to play? No thanks. Sell it for $10 or give it away for free, and you might justify it.
It's only in subways (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that big a deal. Subways with bare walls would be very odd. Extremly odd and not even close to realistic. So you have a game whose environment includes add ridden subways (just like in real life). Now the developer has to ask a question: Which adds do we display in the subways? You can choose at random or you can do what the subways do: whoever pays.
If, for the sake of realism, you have to put adds in the subway stations, why not make money off of it? The game experience is the same, the only difference is instead of seeing "Moca Mola" and "Nickers" adds you see the same ones your used to in real subways (Coca Cola and Snickers).
Now if we started seeing the "Legendary Snicker Hammer of Pwnage" and the "Coca Cola Champion's Sword" I'd be put off....but this isn't the case at all.
Re:Unobtrusive (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind necessarily playing a race car simulation which included advertisements pretty much everywhere, for the reason that real races will have tons of advertisements everywhere. Just don't take the intrusive information that isn't related and do lower the price on the game by using the advertising revenue to subsidize it.
Perhaps use some of the revenue to release extra content for the game.
But overall, I do have to say that in game ads are tacky in most situations. When I play games, I play them to leave reality, not to be more available to the advertisers I'm trying to ignore.
Re:It's only in subways (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isn't the ads themselves -- it's the blanket data mining clause included in the EULA.
I don't care about ads -- I do care about people snooping around on my computer.
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:2, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellgate:_London#Pricing [wikipedia.org]
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marketing Has Succeeded (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry, but the battle against 'marketeers' was lost decades ago.
IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's only in subways (Score:2, Insightful)
EA wants it both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
My problems are as follows.
Darwinian response to exploitation by customers (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, this nullifies any right you have to bitch about draconian returns policies or lousy customer service. It's this sort of behaviour that probably led to the killing off of more reasonable store return policies (if not the stores themselves) and encouraged- and justified- the proliferation of those that treat their customers like assholes.
People like you are the reason that we're not living in that "dream world" any more. (**)
(*) Yeah, I'm waiting for a self-justifying whine along the lines of "they could re-sell it". Like it should be their problem to re-sell your secondhand crap in exchange for "returning" your money that they never received in the first place.
(**) Pre-empt #2; Yes, everyone else was doing it too, and it wouldn't have made any difference what you did as an individual. Whatever.
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
At least dynamo is trying to give some thought to showing a little Resistance to the companies that are misusing us.
It's time for a little pushback.
To all of those saying "It adds to the realism"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertisers should host servers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This CAN be stopped (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, good luck with that. Every Gamestop I've ever been to has the boxes on the shelves and the games in the drawer behind the register. I'm not sure how I can return it to them unopened when I can't even buy it unopened.
That's not how it works (Score:3, Insightful)
More revenue means more profit, not more "stuff" for the buyer. Your transaction is done.
Put yourself in EA's shoes. Anyway they can make more profit they'll do it. They'll kill kittens, throw your mother in jail, do whatever it takes to make more money.
Most games are mediocre. They're not horrible, they'll kill an afternoon or 3 with some fun. But they're pretty unmemorable. So you can go to Eletronic Gaming Stop and buy the latest mediocre game for $60. By the same token, hardly any gamers have played more than a handful of titles. For most gamers on a system, there are probably dozens of really good games that are a little older. I'm always curious why people won't just buy a used copy of a 1-2 year old game for 1/3 to 1/2 the price of new and actually have fun.
Now the game stores try to convince you that you should trade in your "good" old game for $5-10 which dries up supply, but it seems to me that there's always a way to get good 18 month old games for about $15-20, which is a way better deal than buying the latest bunch of junk from EA (for example). If you know an avid gamer, let him know you'll give $15 for any game he/she wants to get rid of and you'll build a library of good games for a fraction of what it costs new.
Re:Darwinian response to exploitation by customers (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me restate it for you. He bought the game from the company with the asshole return policy who wouldn't give him his money back. (They get to keep the money). He then exploited the goodwill of another company with a more lenient returns policy (costing them time and/or money even though they never sold him the game nor made any money off it in the first place).
The "asshole" company learns that their policy pays and prospers, the "good" company loses out. Repeat often enough and over time Darwinian forces ensure that the asshole companies are more likely to survive, and that either the good companies go under- or they change their returns policy to something less favourable.