DX:HR. In-game ads?

[Ghil]

They have started to put ads in-game, ranging from a mc'donalds ad in-game to an ad for the Star Wars blu-ray release on the loading screen.

In-game ads in a full-price game with non-free DLCs? I'm personally completely against, but I wanted to know your opinions.

[Smashbox]

I really hope you're kidding. Ads on the loading screen. Gahd

If it's true, I'm glad I've just finished the game.

I consider putting advertisements into expensive products (especially if they're not justified in-game, for example loading screen ads) to be a serious violation, and more than a step too far. Sadly, there's no mechanism that could stop the process of ads in your games being the new normal once it's underway. Consider the cinema, where you are subjected to conventional commercials prior to trailers after paying $12, or an eight dollar magazine that contains 45% ads. We don't even blink anymore, there's no surprise, and those ads are expected.

I find it very troubling to say the least that publishers would be selling the eyeballs of people who just paid SIXTY dollars for their game. After reviews are published, but while the game is still 'new'. It seems like somewhat of a betrayal to me.

[Whitmore]

If it was simply on in-game billboards? Eh, fine. Whatever. But loading screens? That's shoe-horning it in for no reason except to make money! But at the end of the day.. Meh, doesn't really change the gaming enjoyment and it might help the developer raise capital. Or you might see a hilarious ad that bugged out and combined Star Wars -WITH- McDonalds.

[Dirtbox]

Ad subsidised gaming is great if you're getting the game for free, otherwise it's a taking a massive liberty. Very disappointed, I just hope it isn't going to become the norm.

[TimA]

Here's a screenshot, from the Steam forums: http://i.imgur.com/jcwfY.jpg

That is horrible. Ugghhhh.

[Smashbox]

I just hope it isn't going to become the norm.

There's nothing to stop this from becoming the new norm, unfortunately. Game-lovers will not stop loving games because there are ads in them, just as movie-lovers still go to the cinema. They will only become more offensive over time. That's almost guaranteed.

[Whitmore]

Urk, those loading screen adverts are just inexcuseable. In-game is sorta alright as.. it's debateable if they are intrusive if they are on a billboard or not but loading screen adverts are just wrong.

[Smashbox]

I can just imagine the artist who made those loading screen designs punching through his bathroom mirror.

[Whitmore]

Indeed. Maybe their landlord will replace it.

You know, it wouldn't be so bad if it was those old-school, hilarious adverts from the 80'. Unfitting, but goddamn hilarious!

[TillEulenspiegel]

Game-lovers will not stop loving games because there are ads in them, just as movie-lovers still go to the cinema. They will only become more offensive over time. That's almost guaranteed.
Yep. Large media companies are all basically the same; games aren't special. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and consumer apathy means they can get away with quite a lot.

It's particularly obnoxious in this case if they've patched in ads post-release, of course.

[deano2099]

Here's a screenshot, from the Steam forums: http://i.imgur.com/jcwfY.jpg

That is horrible. Ugghhhh.

WTF?! I was really looking forward to getting Star Wars on blu-ray but apparently they're not coming out until 2027? Fuck that.

[Jorum]

wow, way to break fantasy world immersion and suspension of disbelief guys....

[cairbre]

I suppose ads in game could make the game feel more real if done right.

[Whitmore]

Didn't Prototype have adverts like this in times sqaure and the like? That fit more than this, though.

[golden_worm]

What a http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=230&d=1316121094shame.

[Smashbox]

It's not actually a logical leap for me to think that there will be new Star Wars revisions coming out in 2027.

[Ghil]

It just won't be Star Wars anymore, Lucas will have changed each frame of the three movies at least twice. :P

[orcane]

That is... WTF :(

At least there's this: http://blog.gib.me/2011/08/23/deus-ex-human-revolution-no-ads/

[Oak]

Meh, doesn't really change the gaming enjoyment and it might help the developer raise capital..

The same could be said for commercials that play between Picus news segments, or gmail-style ads accompanying the email you read, or real-life soda brands appearing in the vending machines. I feel like it's when advertising is presented as innocuous and unobtrusive that people should really be raising a ruckus. This sort of thing is the foot in the door.

If a developer wants to raise capital, they can sell video games.

[Capt. Eduardo del Mango]

Here's a screenshot, from the Steam forums: http://i.imgur.com/jcwfY.jpg

That is horrible. Ugghhhh.

Oh, my, that looks abysmal.

I had hoped they were going to make it appropriate. A MacDonalds advert isn't going to look out of place in DX:HR - ads for, I don't know, Lynx deoderant or 7Up would look fine too. Having a very clearly time-specific product (upcoming DVD, the new 2011 Fiat Whateveritis) or something clearly incongruous in there just completely kills the sense of immersion. Absolutely atrocious.

[arienette]

Poor form, I'm disappointed with them.

[kwyjibo]

The loading screen is past the menus, it is part of the game experience. It follows the aesthetic cues and ambience of the game itself, these adverts detract from it.

If you want to advertise, do it in a place where the context is not broken. For example - placing an advert in the Steam server browser would be fine. Because the Steam server browser is completely outside the game context, it is a functional real world piece of software, that takes its cues from your desktop UI. Advertising in that space is fine.

If you want to advertise in an immersive game context, then your adverts better be immersive too. A McDonald's billboard is fine in 2027, it's even better if that billboard suggests it's some farmed invitro meat. A holographic advert for an augmented Lady Gaga doing her greatest hits would work, a poster telling us her latest album is due out in October 2011 won't.

In game advertising can work, it's just that the companies behind it are too fucking lazy and stupid to make it so.

[Unaco]

In game billboard ads I could take, happily. They'd fit in with the game world quite well. But on loading screens? That's just silly.

Edit: When I say I'd take them happily, I mean that they wouldn't feel out of place, and could actually help with immersion... if the video billboard changes after a few days or similar.

[Ghil]

Here's the thread on the Eidos forums:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=117716

[deano2099]

I'm not normally one to hop on the slippery slope but the loading screen thing worries the hell out of me. In-game ads on billboards... that's more-or-less product placement but loading screens...

Let's face it, that screenshot posted earlier is actually fairly inoffensive. But we're steps away from those adverts getting bigger, then being videos, then displaying for a set length of time regardless of the load time... I mean that's how TV ads work, why not in games?

Still in the interests of balance, thumbs up for the patch that just landed:

- Intro logos can now be skipped on all but the first run of the game.
- Added windowed mode.

[Thants]

I'd just like to say, I do mind in-game ads on billboards. I don't care if it makes it seem more real. I don't need my games to replicate the crappy parts of reality.

[DigitalSignalX]

It's been confirmed there are also adverts in-game, while wandering around on billboards. Some overpass in Detroit has McD's and Adidas adds. I don't mind in-game so much as long as its immersive.

Dead Island: What if that was Victorias Secret or Chanel Perfume? No problem.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8808/deadislandgame201109101.th.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8808/deadislandgame201109101.jpg)

Dirt 3, adds yes please.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9893/dirt3game20110911160947.th.jpg (http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9893/dirt3game20110911160947.jpg)

But adds on loading screen? No.

[Harlander]

Makes me glad I finished it already.

I'm with what seems to be the consensus: ads in-game can work if they don't break the theme (no "coming june 2011" in a game set in 2316 or whatever). It worked in Blade Runner, etc. But ads in the metagame furniture like loading screens and menus? Only the sound 'blaaeeeuuurgh' can describe how I feel about that.

[TimA]

Down with this sort of thing!

Makes me want to not play it any more, somehow, gives me a bit of a queasy feeling.

[SpiritBoots]

This is one reason we buy games is so we don't have to have ads in them. Even free-to-play games don't have ads most of the time anymore. It's completely ridiculous. Would a record company put a small 30 second ad spot at the end of a few songs? I don't think even they would be that dumb.

[Ian]

I can live with ads provided we get something tangible out of it. If devs are using this money to either a) sell the game for cheaper and thus probably snag more sales or b) adding at least a percentage of it to the game's budget.

Not that that'll happen, of course.

[Megagun]

I'd rather have ads on my loading screens than ads in my game.

The timing of this seems to suggest to me that this is some test to see if it might be worth it to put ads in a game once the game has been released for a while, and can be bought cheaper in stores (or can be bought second-hand).

Do I mind these ads? Not really. Games are getting more and more expensive to create, yet they're not actually getting significantly more expensive to buy. This kind of money has to come from somewhere, or else publishers will be forced to take less risk in their investments (read: more generic first-person manshooters EVERY year) or close down some of the developers they wholly own.

Ads are not something I really want in my games, but if I could choose between ads, having to pay 60-70 euros for my games, or having no genuinely new/interesting games... I'll take ads, thankyouverymuch.

[Shane]

Could the ads be the reason why they made loading times so long? *shudder*

[Tikey]

Could the ads be the reason why they made loading times so long? *shudder*

That's actually a danger if this becomes the norm.
What if a developer makes a way to avoid loading screens (something like Sands of Time did) and the publisher makes them take it away because they can't put ads.

[Nalano]

Games are getting more and more expensive to create

No, they're just spending more to create them. We didn't put a gun to Yoichi Wada's head and tell him to spend umpteen million dollars on making everything glow orange.

[deano2099]

Here's a thought, and let's try and not get derailed in to the general argument but I think it's interesting to bring it up...

Pirates are (potentially) now contributing monetarily to the game publishers. They increase the ad impressions. Pirating the game is actually now more beneficial to the publisher than not buying and not playing the game at all...

[Jams O'Donnell]

Here's a thought, and let's try and not get derailed in to the general argument but I think it's interesting to bring it up...

Pirates are (potentially) now contributing monetarily to the game publishers. They increase the ad impressions. Pirating the game is actually now more beneficial to the publisher than not buying and not playing the game at all...

Would a pirated copy have the ads in though? Presumably pirated copies want as little connection to official servers as possible.

[Shane]

I don't think the pirated versions have the ads in them.

[Nalano]

I don't think the pirated versions have the ads in them.

Bahahahahahaaa

[soldant]

Pirates are (potentially) now contributing monetarily to the game publishers. They increase the ad impressions. Pirating the game is actually now more beneficial to the publisher than not buying and not playing the game at all...
And the pirates will often be using a crack to block online authentication and probably adservers while they're at it.

I'm completely open to the idea of advertisements offering a revenue-stream for the developers... but not if they're changing me full price for a game, or deciding to release expensive DLC at the same time. Not suggesting this is what's going to happen but I can see plenty of publishers at least looking at it with greedy eyes.

I'd be happy for developers to put ads on loading screens or in game as billboards, so long as two conditions are met:

1) The extra benefits are passed onto players, i.e. using the funds to create free DLC, or reducing the cost of the title
2) It doesn't directly interfere with me being able to play the game. i.e. don't force me to watch an advertisement before I can play


No, they're just spending more to create them. We didn't put a gun to Yoichi Wada's head and tell him to spend umpteen million dollars on making everything glow orange.
I kind of agree but at the same time a big budget does expand the capacity to increase production values. I mean plenty of kids these days won't touch a game unless it's fully voice acted. And while 8-bit or shadowpuppet indie games have their place, we all still enjoy big budget titles. I agree that some developers go balls-out with costs for pointless reasons, but we can't just live in a world of low production values. It'd get boring fast.

[wcaypahwat]

Even more immersion breaking is the fact that the starwars BD collection went on sale here on the 14th.

[Heliocentric]

I can just imagine the artist who made those loading screen designs punching through his bathroom wall, dragging a guard though it and knocking him out with a spine rending crunch.


I fixed that for you.

[Heliocentric]

I agree that some developers go balls-out with costs for pointless reasons, but we can't just live in a world of low production values. It'd get boring fast.

No, really it wouldn't. Games would get more varied because they cant cling to being pretty to distinguish themselves, that said I love a pretty world. Many open world games are a pleasure to spend so much time in because of varied, interesting, and beautiful settings. But for a linear game, really just stick to polishing the challenge and variety, that said, pretty is nice.

[soldant]

No, really it wouldn't. Games would get more varied because they cant cling to being pretty to distinguish themselves, that said I love a pretty world. Many open world games are a pleasure to spend so much time in because of varied, interesting, and beautiful settings. But for a linear game, really just stick to polishing the challenge and variety, that said, pretty is nice.
There's absolutely no reason why they can't strive for decent graphics and maintain a quality gameworld. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The division is entirely artificial and I'm noticing a trend in indie games that they're either competent in gameplay or art, but rarely ever both. I'm guessing that's because the former group are programmers and the latter group are artists (and I usually dislike the latter group, for the record).

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit sick of 8bit retro-graphic games. We moved into huge screen resolutions and embraced GPUs for a good reason. I despise the "graphics over gameplay" maxim which seemed to take off during the early 2000s, but assuming that games will "become more varied" purely because "they're not striving for a pretty game" is silly.

[Nalano]

There's absolutely no reason why they can't strive for decent graphics and maintain a quality gameworld. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You'd never know that from looking at AAA games. Budgets breaking nine figures, and they still can't hire a decent writer.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit sick of 8bit retro-graphic games.
There's a big difference between a deliberate retro style and low-budget graphics. Avadon (http://spidweb.com/avadon/shots.html), for example, is by no means 8-bit, but it does use simple 2D isometric graphics.

I can slap together some pretty decent 3D stuff using cheap off-the-shelf assets (http://dexsoft-games.com/). Is that acceptable to you, or do you demand the latest and greatest shiny effects and lip-syncing and polished animations to exercise your expensive GPU and widescreen monitor?

You can create a wide variety of good-looking graphical styles, 2D and 3D, for much less than it cost Sierra to make cutting-edge 2D graphics back in the day. There's an increase in AAA budgets solely because of technological wankery.

[gundrea]

There's absolutely no reason why they can't strive for decent graphics and maintain a quality gameworld. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The division is entirely artificial



I'm guessing that's because the former group are programmers and the latter group are artists (and I usually dislike the latter group, for the record).

You really shouldn't argue against your own point like that. Now I have nothing to post.

[Heliocentric]

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit sick of 8bit retro-graphic games.
I just want 16bit graphics to come into vogue (to be fair, the DS to fullfil that).

So many gorgeous 16 bit games.

[deano2099]

You'd never know that from looking at AAA games. Budgets breaking nine figures, and they still can't hire a decent writer.

I've been wondering about that. I mean Human Revolution had some decent writers on staff and it was still pretty average.

I think it's partly that the game 'director' already has a huge chunk of the fiction in his head: the setting, background and basic plot. So no writer is as invested as coming in to something from scratch. And there are very few people who are genuine video-game writers: ie. want to tell interactive stories... I'm starting to wonder if the skill set of "good games writer" even really exists yet.

[thegooseking]

I haven't seen any ads yet, but it's not cool.

It could be ok. As someone pointed out in the Eidos Forum, the huge McDonalds advert in The Fifth Element was not a bad thing, because it was competently written and designed into the ethos of the film. Conversely, most of the companies advertised in Blade Runner no longer even exist, making it doubtful that they would be present in 2019, but no more doubtful than reading Philip K. Dick's Ubik, which was set in 1992 but features a technology level we still don't have; or indeed, Orwell's 1984... The fact that it's advertising isn't really that important.

The problem is, advertising in a movie only works if creativity and commercialism meet each other half-way (like in Back to the Future, when Marty says "Give me a Pepsi Free." and Lou says "If you want a Pepsi, pal, you gotta pay for it." -- it's a Pepsi ad, but it contributes to the humour of the film and makes the creative point that 1955 is not like 1985), and there's no reason that shouldn't also be true in games. But what we have instead is parts of virtual space parcelled off with which advertisers can do what they want. From a commercial standpoint that's brilliant: ads can be localised and updated, but what does that buy us? Granted, the Pepsi Free joke sailed over my head when I was a kid, because there was no such thing in the UK (and given that Pepsi Free is no longer called Pepsi Free, younger audiences might not get it either), but when localised advertising just means more generic advertising, that doesn't really solve the problem.

As far as I'm aware, Anarchy Online was one of the first games to have advertising like this. Free players had to see the ads (though they could turn video ads off if they wanted) while subscribers could turn all ads off (though they could see them if they wanted, of course; the placeholders that the game put in instead were a bit dull and boring after a while). That worked for an MMO when F2P was a relatively new idea, but it's hard to translate that to a SP experience (or even to modern MMOs, where F2P seems to be the way to go). Nevertheless, I think there should be a legitimate option not to see ads. A subscription basis is very unpalatable for that (especially if all the subscription gets you is removal of ads, unless it was something like £3 a year for all titles from that publisher). More discrete ad-removal 'DLC' (except you're paying not to download something) would also be bad, no matter how cheap it was, because it would inevitably seem like holding your experience to ransom.

If they could figure out a way to do it unintrusively and reliably (and that's a big 'if'), I would be ok with ads showing up in used copies of games but not in new copies (and maybe then, ad-removal 'DLC' would be ok; that would be similar to but more acceptable than these "online pass" shenanigans). Or perhaps the regular version doesn't have ads, but there is an option to buy an ad-supported cheaper version. Or maybe there's some other way I haven't thought of that ads could work.

[Nalano]

I kinda feel gypped in that I paid for the game and then they made this decision after I'd already invested.

[Megagun]

This was known ahead of time, and I must admit I was a bit surprised that I didn't see any ads in-game when I played it.

Source, see second-to-last paragraph (http://games.on.net/article/12481/Hands-On_Deus_Ex_Human_Revolution_PC_Version)

[QuantaCat]

Im glad I did not pay for the game, and lets just leave it at that, though the actual game is great, it is hampered by really ackward and downright stupid publisher decisions. I am not a DRM activist nor do I mind most things, but nothing spells out "trying to get everyone to pay the most" than regionlocking (illegal) and making adware. I dont mind adware, but I do mind adware AND paying for it.

[Anthile]

I am very glad about this development. For a while I was afraid people would eventually run out of things to complain about DX:HR but Eidos delivers quality DLC - for free even! - to keep it going.

[Patrick Swayze]

They could've done this in far more intelligent manner, much like the whole tongue in cheek adverts for Final Fantasy 23 that already existed in the game.

They could've advertised Coke2, or Star Wars VII on billboards or in the newspapers quite easily and mingled it in with the Sarif and Limb adverts and whatever else and it would've been totally plausible.

Alas, Gamers will vote with their wallets as they always do and the dumb advertising will continue, the over priced DLC will continue, etc etc etc...

[Giaddon]

There is a small Episode 9 joke tucked away in one of the emails...

[thegooseking]

This was known ahead of time, and I must admit I was a bit surprised that I didn't see any ads in-game when I played it.

Source, see second-to-last paragraph (http://games.on.net/article/12481/Hands-On_Deus_Ex_Human_Revolution_PC_Version)

It's true. When I looked at that Eidos forum thread, the posts were from back in May, so I don't know why there wasn't more noise made about this before now.

I suppose stealth is a key part of Deus Ex, and they got the ads in stealthily. See? The ads are appropriate to Deus Ex!

[Oneironaut]

A few months ago when I heard about in-game ads, I thought it would be cool. I figured they would have actual companies on the in-game billboard to make it feel a little more like a place that could actually be in our near future. I never thought they were going to have the ads on the load screens.

[soldant]

There's a big difference between a deliberate retro style and low-budget graphics.
I know, but it seems like a lot of devs are using it entirely as an excuse not to focus on putting some decent graphics into the game. I'm not asking for everything to be Crysis standard nor do I think that there's no place for a retro-styled game. Just that it seems to be increasingly common to use it purely so they don't have to worry about the graphical fidelity and just go "Oh I know it looks like a bunch of coloured blocks, that's the entire point." For example I have absolutely no problem with Minecraft's graphics. I do however with some attempt at a modern adventure game which looks like King's Quest for no good reason.

Avadon's graphics aren't bad at all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. Nor is there anything majorly wrong with using off the shelf graphics so long as they're of a decent quality. You seem to think my argument is something along the lines of "All games need a billion polygons and a thousand shader effects to be awesome" which is wrong. My argument is simply "games need servicable graphics unless they're inherently non-graphical in nature." Otherwise you end up with something like Dwarf Fortress with a nigh-incomprehensible GUI by default.

Good gameplay and good tech don't have to be mutually exclusive, it's only publishers and indie devs who want to try to make that distinction.


You really shouldn't argue against your own point like that. Now I have nothing to post.
Actually my point is "find a decent artist" or "find someone who knows how to actually make a game" in a similar way to how AAA studios need to find a friggin' writer who doesn't write crappy high-school testosterone-soaked rage stories.

[Spacewalk]

I'm guessing that this is what the always online requirement for games was leading to.

[sinomatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

My general feeling on the matter.

[Rii]

Are the ads in the console versions as well or just on PC?


Pirates are (potentially) now contributing monetarily to the game publishers. They increase the ad impressions. Pirating the game is actually now more beneficial to the publisher than not buying and not playing the game at all...

Pirates have always been beneficial for game publishers. If I'd pirated the game I probably would've gone on to tell people - y'know, the kinds of people who don't spend their lives reading gaming sites - how awesome it is leading to more (and more) sales for Square. Well, I tell people about it now, but only as an exhibit in talking points These Square Guys Are Huge Tossers, PC Gaming Is Bullshit, and Three Cheers For Competition Law and the EU. Not sure how useful that is for them.

Pretty much every study that's ever been done on the matter has concluded that pirates are some of industry's most valuable consumers both directly and indirectly. Alas the capitalist mindset is like child.

[Oak]

Pretty much every study that's ever been done on the matter has concluded that pirates are some of industry's most valuable consumers both directly and indirectly.

I'm clicking the words, but no link is popping up. Help?

[Unaco]

I'm clicking the words, but no link is popping up. Help?

It's not just you. I think the problem is with Rii's post, and not with us.

[QuantaCat]

Though there is no link to anything contrary, which wouldve helped instead of just critisizing.

[Rii]

I'm clicking the words, but no link is popping up. Help?

This (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/04092915191/industry-suppressed-report-showing-users-shuttered-pirate-site-probably-helped-movie-industry.shtml) link covers an industry-sponsored study that went unpublished after its findings ran contrary to the industry line and links to a handful of other studies in the same vein.

The latest addition to the pile of "well, duh" would appear to be this (http://piracy.ssrc.org/hadopi-says-lets-try-cutting-off-nose-to-spite-face/) study by French truncheon-wielding IP agency HADOPI.

Of course in the corner opposite common sense, virtually all conducted research, and indeed virtually all human progress to date we have ... unsubstantiated industry bleatings based upon the absurd premise that a pirated copy is a lost sale, where that premise has been thrown out by pretty much every court someone has ever been sued for file sharing in. Oh, and industry's bought politicians.

It's a tough call to make, really.

[Unaco]

The handful of links from the 1st article are all Music specific, and don't seem to deal with video games. Is there evidence that Video Game Pirates/Thieves are the Industry's most valuable customers? I don't think we can say that the two industries... Music and Video Games... are going to be equivalent. Conclusions from a study of one industry don't necessarily equate to the other.

[Rii]

Except that even the slightest application of common sense would tell you that whatever the relationship between music and piracy it's likely to be magnified tenfold for video games on account of the latter's much higher prices (discouraging experimentation), lack of free entry pathways (such as radio and television), limited means of access/evaluation (all non-instantaneous - even playing a demo is an investment of time and effort on the part of the consumer) and lower cultural penetration resulting in increased significance for direct word-of-mouth advertising (which relies on people actually having played your game).

[Warskull]

If you don't like ads patched into your game, refuse to buy any of the DLC. It is that simple. You can even toss them a quick e-mail informing them off this. Besides, you already know, deep down, that the DLC was going to be $15 with at most 2-3 hours of half-assed content.

[soldant]

If you don't like ads patched into your game, refuse to buy any of the DLC. It is that simple.
Boycotts don't work in gaming. At all. Everybody says "Down with [company] I'm not buying your stuff until you meet our demands!" before buying it anyway.

[Warskull]

Boycotts don't work in gaming. At all. Everybody says "Down with [company] I'm not buying your stuff until you meet our demands!" before buying it anyway.

And people get exactly what they deserve.

Seriously, though, stop being a consumer whore. Either don't buy the DLC or enjoy the the ads.

[soldant]

And people get exactly what they deserve.

Seriously, though, stop being a consumer whore. Either don't buy the DLC or enjoy the the ads.
So... I make a comment that boycotts don't work in gaming, and that makes me a consumer whore? If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd know I'm opposed to in-game advertising unless it results in free DLC or a reduced purchase price of the game itself.

Like it or not the mighty boycott crusade hasn't accomplished anything in gaming. Example: MW2 boycott and the L4D2 boycott. You can yell and scream all you want, but if the content is good, people will buy it regardless. A small, vocal group will rant and rave like always and nothing will happen.

By all means flood news sites with rage and spit venom in emails, but don't think that a boycott will ever achieve anything in gaming because people are going to buy it regardless.

[deano2099]

Anyone else playing at the moment? Because I'm not getting any loading screen ads?

[Nalano]

So... I make a comment that boycotts don't work in gaming, and that makes me a consumer whore?

Well... yes.

Not to be a negative nancy, but there's no hard and fast rule that says that boycotts cannot work. Yeah, there's been some very publicized failed boycotts, but god forbid we give up the whole thing altogether just because of that.

Discipline is a hard thing to enforce, but should the shit get bad enough, we may see something yet. Until then, to say that all boycotts cannot work, that those who still cling to that dream are ranters and whiners, and we'll all jump through whatever flaming hoops publishers make for us just to get at their next yearly sequel makes you, well, something of a consumer whore.

[soldant]

Until then, to say that all boycotts cannot work, that those who still cling to that dream are ranters and whiners, and we'll all jump through whatever flaming hoops publishers make for us just to get at their next yearly sequel makes you, well, something of a consumer whore.
Good luck getting that kind of unity in the gaming world. It's a pipedream unfortunately. The best way to get publishers or developers to take notice is through widespread ranting and raving on news sites. Trying to get enough people to not buy a particular game to actually make some kind of impact is fairly unlikely.

All you've done is just take my statement to an unnecessary extreme and isn't even remotely indicative of what I've said. You've taken "gaming boycotts don't work" to mean "Everyone shut up and stand in line for your next DRM-infested Call of Heroes 9: Honourable Honour".

I'd rather we not waste time on ineffectual boycotts which everybody promptly forgets on release day. It's a joke, and a bad one at that.

[QuantaCat]

I think it would be more interesting to see if it is actually legal from a consumer protection point of view, to have ads in the game, after paying a full price. It also never says that ads are going to be in the game, unless there was a EULA I (well not I obviously, I didnt buy the game) didnt read that had those bits in about "we are going to be adding real ads in the game, thus creating a secondary profit opportunity)

Also, it would be funny if the pirated copies were to have ads in them too. Talk about paying "from beyond the grave". Not very likely, though, and in the end, its the consumer that ends up paying with "getting exposed to ads" which serves no artistic value.

[Megagun]

What exactly is this 'full price' thing? 60 euros? 70 euros? 40 euros?
There is simply no way of knowing if you're paying 'full price' for DX:HR or not. Sure, you can compare it with other games, but even that is slightly silly. Some games are 40 euros, singleplayer-only, and have little content or are so uninteresting to warrant that price tag. Other games are multiplayer gems you'll play for years, yet are also priced at 40 euros. The only way you're knowing if you're paying full price for this game, is if they had two 'tiers' you could buy: one with ads, one without ads. As far as I know, the augmented edition also has ads, so they haven't made that distinction ads/no-ads with the different versions available. For all we know, they originally planned to have this game priced at 60 euros, and have brought it down to whatever it's now but added ads in to compensate.

I paid 28 euros for my pre-order at Green Man Gaming. I never had any ads in my first playthrough of the game. Do I mind the ads I'm seeing in my replay of the game? Not really. Hell, it might even increase the chances of seeing a sequel or lengthy bits of DLC, which I will probably enjoy playing.

A question for those who are really bothered by these ads: would you pay 10 or 5 euros extra to get rid of the ads?

[Rii]

All I know is that I'm liking my decision not to buy this game more and more.

[Unaco]

All I know is that I'm liking my decision not to buy this game more and more.

You should reconsider, maybe in the future, when it's on sale or something. It really is a terrific game... putting the ads thing aside. They don't ruin it, just take a little of the shine off. It'd be a shame for you to miss out on the game because of this issue.

[Rii]

You should reconsider, maybe in the future, when it's on sale or something. It really is a terrific game... putting the ads thing aside. They don't ruin it, just take a little of the shine off. It'd be a shame for you to miss out on the game because of this issue.

I was already put off by the anti-consumer stench wafting from this game, the subsequent patching in of ads merely confirms that prior assessment.

- attempt to region lock the game pre-release, only foiled by EU competition law
- tied to Steam
- the Augmented Edition / "Explosive Mission Pack" nonsense
- no manual for PC edition + shoddiest case ever; bootleg DVDs from Indonesia are more respectably presented
- bugs / issues of a nature revealing inattention to PC version
- and now patched in ads

The DLC path for the game has yet to be unveiled but we all know it has one and in line with the pattern above I suspect it will be terrible.

I'll probably pick up the fully DLC'ed and bugfixed GOTY edition for a tenner at some point.

[deano2099]

Not sure why I'm not getting ads now. Don't want to complain too loudly though EU, store-bought (not Augmented Edition) copy with the pre-order stuff activated. Started the game before the ads were patched in.

As for boycotts... they don't work in gaming because gaming is mainstream but the mainstream media has yet to catch up. They could work but you'd need to do a lot more than just not buy it and tell other people not to on gaming sites. Because most gamers don't read gaming sites. Maybe raise enough money for an advert in the national press or to hire a proper PR company for your boycott and you may have a chance. But when most people say they want to boycott something it just means "I'm not going to buy it" - that's no use.

Complaining on forums isn't going to reach the millions of people that EA's cinema, billboard and TV ads do.

[QuantaCat]

You should reconsider, maybe in the future, when it's on sale or something. It really is a terrific game... putting the ads thing aside. They don't ruin it, just take a little of the shine off. It'd be a shame for you to miss out on the game because of this issue.

I get the very strong feeling, that this game was a case of publisher vs developer. I cant really speak for the gamedeveloper side, as Im only just starting out next year, but in the film business, its the same thing. There are producers that are simply out to make the most money out of a project, and fuck the "consumers" over. (which usually means fucking the artists over). As far as I can tell (and have heard from friends of mine that are in the business) its exactly the same in the "game world".



- attempt to region lock the game pre-release, only foiled by EU competition law
- tied to Steam
- the Augmented Edition / "Explosive Mission Pack" nonsense
- no manual for PC edition + shoddiest case ever; bootleg DVDs from Indonesia are more respectably presented
- bugs / issues of a nature revealing inattention to PC version
- and now patched in ads


Direct reply to those points:
- Yes, that is what made me not buy the game in the first place.
- I do not mind that, as I use steam for a lot of things, and find it very useful. (never had any technical problems either)
- well, Im biased because I only know that version. so I didnt mind.
- I wasnt hit by that because of digital download version
- didnt experience any bugs, though the cutscenes were horribly horribly lowres.
- yes. The ads wouldnt bother me so much if it wasnt in conjunction with the first point, really, and with the silly DLC things. (I would rather pay for an expansion instead of DLC)

So yes, I dont want to contribute to the first version madness, but I will however, get this title when all is settled and the DLCs have run their course. (because I want a sequel, very much)

EDIT: also, DLCs that add more content to the main game, are horrible and should be taken out back and shot. Though I have to admit, even though FalloutNV looked like they were going the same route, I like how they added a large storyline to the game, and they truly added scope to the game.

[Irishjohn]

I must say, the ads are pretty offensive. I haven't picked the game up yet, and I don't really want to now. I know that there are mods to remove some of (all?) the ads, but am I not forking over enough money as it is? It's really pretty offensive.

[soldant]

What exactly is this 'full price' thing? 60 euros? 70 euros? 40 euros? ... For all we know, they originally planned to have this game priced at 60 euros, and have brought it down to whatever it's now but added ads in to compensate.
The price does seem slightly lower in comparison to other titles on release, but if they're putting ads in the game (especially from big-name brands like McDonalds) I think a $10 AUD reduction (based on RRP and usual cost of a new PC game) is barely even a token gesture compared to what they might be making in return. The developers spend their time making the game, then sell the game to recover their costs and turn a profit if the game is good, it's not like without advertisements they'd all be starving and bankrupt. I don't see why, if we're paying a decent amount for the game, they should be able to turn part of it into a vehicle for advertising.

I've got no issues with ads in games (I don't even really care about immersion-breakers like this loading screen stuff) but if they're getting another revenue stream I'd hope they'd pass it on to players either by a reduction in price (beyond a $10 token gesture) or by keeping DLC free. I mean they're getting revenue beyond the simple sale of the game, which has covered costs since... well, forever, provided the game sells well (and it's obvious that this one has).


A question for those who are really bothered by these ads: would you pay 10 or 5 euros extra to get rid of the ads?
When the price is this close to RRP? No, I'd much rather complain! But if the game was much cheaper, then I might pay the extra depending on how obnoxious the ads were. If they were particularly bad, like forcing me to watch a 30 second advertisement prior to each level, I'd gladly pay the money.