EA Strikes Again

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"][QUOTE="Jbul"]

I see a big difference. I go to movies late because I hate the previews. And a movie is $9. A videogame is $70. Some movies have previews when you buy them on DVD/Bluray, but they're skippable. And they're also not 1/4 as expensive.

SPBoss

[QUOTE="Jbul"]The ad itself was annoying, but like I said, it's the principle of it that is more offensive. So you're telling me everytime you went out and bought a game, you'd be "okay" with being forced to watch advertisements before you got the play? I'm sorry you feel that way, that in itself is pretty disappointing to hear.

IronBass

I'm sorry you're dissapointed :)

First, I didn't say I would be ok. I said it's not a big deal.

Secondly, being practical, 2 minutes is an extremely small amount of time.

So regardless of how "offensive" the principle may be, in the praxis is not a big deal, at all.

Paying sixty-dollars for a game and then being forced to watch a two-minute inescapable advertisement is loathsome. Even DVD's and Blueray's allow you to skip through such content. Something like this may not seem like a big deal given that it only occurs once but I would submit that it sets an ugly precedent.

Companies are generally smart enough to understand that these types of intrusive advertisements must be implemented not by miles or feet but rather inches. Your insistence that a two minute ad is much ado about nothing belies the fact that such an advertisement is, to my knowledge, unprecedented. If consumers accept a two-minute ad this time, why not a 3-4 minute ad next? Why not an entire plethora of ads that cannot be skipped? After all, what's a mere ten or even fifteen minutes really, in the grand scheme of things?

At least, that is what your logic purports.

Truthfully, I wouldn't let this impede my purchase of the game but at the same time I fully understand and agree that such a practice should be immediately condemned so as to let the publisher know that such practices will not be tolerated in the future. Having a demo contain such an advertisement is understandable but this type of thing is more than a bit insulting to the consumer.

I never did understand this mentality of purposely being late to a movie just to avoid the previews. I want to get there on time, get whatever munchies I'll want, and easily find a seat. I also don't want to risk missing anything just because I was trying to miss some previews. Also the previews are usually pretty cool for the action flicks I go and watch. I don't see why price makes any difference though since previews for their upcoming games isn't "paid for" advertising that would offset price. I guess they could make them skippable but at the end of the day 2 minutes certainly wouldn't ruin a whole game for me.Archangel3371

i for one love previews. i actually go earlier so i can catch all the previews. they are part of the movie going experience.

watching unskippable ads on video games, not so much. :P

Paying sixty-dollars for a game and then being forced to watch a two-minute inescapable advertisement is loathsome. Even DVD's and Blueray's allow you to skip through such content. Something like this may not seem like a big deal given that it only occurs once but I would submit that it sets an ugly precedent.

Companies are generally smart enough to understand that these types of intrusive advertisements must be implemented not by miles or feet but rather inches. Your insistence that a two minute ad is much ado about nothing belies the fact that such an advertisement is, to my knowledge, unprecedented. If consumers accept a two-minute ad this time, why not a 3-4 minute ad next? Why not an entire plethora of ads that cannot be skipped? After all, what's a mere ten or even fifteen minutes really, in the grand scheme of things?

At least, that is what your logic purports.

Truthfully, I wouldn't let this impede my purchase of the game but at the same time I fully understand and agree that such a practice should be immediately condemned so as to let the publisher know that such practices will not be tolerated in the future. Having a demo contain such an advertisement is understandable but this type of thing is more than a bit insulting to the consumer.

Grammaton-Cleric

Ever heard of Slippery Slope?

I haven't said anything about a "plethora of ads" (depending of how many minutes we define the term, that could, indeed, be big deal).

I said that a 2 minutes add is not a big deal. That's all I said. ;)

To those saying a one time 2 minute ad isn't a big deal. You're right, it's not. Gaming ismerely ahobby after all and being forced to watch a commerical once is definitely not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. A big deal would be Sarah Palin getting elected as the u.s preisdent in 2012 or more U.S soldiers dying in Afghanistan this year than anyother year.

This is a video game forum, this is what we talk about. Framerate issues, graphics and game design issues. NONE of the that is a big deal of course, but that is what we are here to talk about. Stuff like this is a minor inconvience but it's our right to complain about it. Especially since video games are so goddamn expensive. I will tolerate and do tolerate unskippable ads on Hulu because i know the content is free there. But if i am spending almost $70 buying a game and then being forced to watch an ad then yes, in the video game world, this IS a big deal.

Like Grammaton said, this sets up a bad precedent. Where would it stop? it was PAINFUL logging on to Xbox Live a couple of days before the Kinect Launch. Out of the six or so tabs on the dashboard, 5 of them had Kinect ads one form or another. The only page that didnt have the Kinect ads were the Friends tab and your own game page. It was disgusting.

To those saying a one time 2 minute ad isn't a big deal. You're right, it's not. Gaming ismerely ahobby after all and being forced to watch a commerical once is definitely not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. A big deal would be Sarah Palin getting elected as the u.s preisdent in 2012 or more U.S soldiers dying in Afghanistan this year than anyother year.

This is a video game forum, this is what we talk about. Framerate issues, graphics and game design issues. NONE of the that is a big deal of course, but that is what we are here to talk about. Stuff like this is a minor inconvience but it's our right to complain about it. Especially since video games are so goddamn expensive. I will tolerate and do tolerate unskippable ads on Hulu because i know the content is free there. But if i am spending almost $70 buying a game and then being forced to watch an ad then yes, in the video game world, this IS a big deal.

Like Grammaton said, this sets up a bad precedent. Where would it stop? it was PAINFUL logging on to Xbox Live a couple of days before the Kinect Launch. Out of the six or so tabs on the dashboard, 5 of them had Kinect ads one form or another. The only page that didnt have the Kinect ads were the Friends tab and your own game page. It was disgusting.

S0lidSnake

Just like you have the right to complain (no one has said you don't) we have the right to say it isn't a big deal. Which brings us back to the start.

And I can't really understand how "disgusting" the dashboard could have looked those 10 seconds before launchingthe game.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

To those saying a one time 2 minute ad isn't a big deal. You're right, it's not. Gaming ismerely ahobby after all and being forced to watch a commerical once is definitely not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. A big deal would be Sarah Palin getting elected as the u.s preisdent in 2012 or more U.S soldiers dying in Afghanistan this year than anyother year.

This is a video game forum, this is what we talk about. Framerate issues, graphics and game design issues. NONE of the that is a big deal of course, but that is what we are here to talk about. Stuff like this is a minor inconvience but it's our right to complain about it. Especially since video games are so goddamn expensive. I will tolerate and do tolerate unskippable ads on Hulu because i know the content is free there. But if i am spending almost $70 buying a game and then being forced to watch an ad then yes, in the video game world, this IS a big deal.

Like Grammaton said, this sets up a bad precedent. Where would it stop? it was PAINFUL logging on to Xbox Live a couple of days before the Kinect Launch. Out of the six or so tabs on the dashboard, 5 of them had Kinect ads one form or another. The only page that didnt have the Kinect ads were the Friends tab and your own game page. It was disgusting.

IronBass

Just like you have the right to complain (no one has said you don't) we have the right to say it isn't a big deal. Which brings us back to the start.

And I can't really understand how "disgusting" the dashboard could have looked those 10 seconds before launchingthe game.

way to miss a point.

way to miss a point.S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]way to miss a point.IronBass

I'm sorry but that link's logic is flawed. or at least that doesn't apply here.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]way to miss a point.S0lidSnake

I'm sorry but that link's logic is flawed. or at least that doesn't apply here.

The fact that you posted a link rather than articulated your own counter to my statement speaks volumes about your own specious position on the matter.

You do realize that the slippery slope construct does in fact have logical applicability when there is a clearly delineated history to predicate the notion that one step may lead to another, don't you? The increasing and persistent foisting of advertisement onto the consumer in all media, including games, has been an oft-discussed topic and any burgeoning medium is likely to deal with such issues as publishers look for continued avenues to exploit advertising. My example of the fifteen minute ad was clearly a rhetorical extreme but since you seem to be fine with a two minute ad that cannot be circumvented, I'm genuinely curious what your threshold is.

There is plenty of anecdotal and historical evidence to suggest that if such an advertisement wasn't met with harsh derision that EA and other publishers could potentially implement such ads in future games and those ads could reasonably be made longer, especially if everyone adopts the logic you clearly wield in your previous posts. There is a game of inches at work here and while you can cite the work of other men all you like, that doesn't shield your arguments from the logic of common sense or the reality of consumer and corporate history, where this type of thing can go from an anomaly to the norm very quickly.

Let me know when you want to engage in a mature discussion instead of posting links and emote icons.

Grammaton-Cleric

There isn't nearly enough anectodal evidence to assume that EA putting a 2 minutes add will cause "a plethora of ads". It's taking things way out of proportion. Besides, my original post was especifically about this case, not about "what could be" in the future (since, by definition, "what could be", could also be not).

But about the future, one could reason that "EA will put ads in more games" (perfectly reasonable) and "companies with similar/aggressive marketing policies, like Activision, will do the same" (also perfectly reasonable) and so on, but things like "a plethora of ads" fell in the Slipery Scope (which saves a lot of typing, so I linked it ;) ).

Also, emoticons are awesome

There isn't nearly enough anectodal evidence to assume that EA putting a 2 minutes add will cause "a plethora of ads". It's taking things out of proportion, especially because my original post was especifically about this case, not about "what could be" in the future(since, by definition, "what could be", could also be not).

On could reason "EA will put ads in more games" (perfectly reasonable) and "companies with aggressive marketing policies, like Activision, will do the same" (also perfectly reasonable) and so on,things like "a plethora of ads"fell in the Slipery Scope (which saves a lot of typing, so I linked it ;) ).

Also, emoticons are awesome

IronBass

Again, I was using an extreme as an example to specifically address your apathy regarding the issue of the ad. Your entire argument comes down to a shoulder shrug and the notion that at two minutes, the issue is minimal. My reason, rhetorical as it may have been, was to essentially ask you the question: If two minutes is acceptable, what isn't?

I'm not asserting or predicting anything specific; what I am postulating is that such an ad, foisted upon the consumer who purchases a full-priced game, is both unprecedented and sets a potentially precarious standard that could be further exploited by either EA or other publishers, assuming it goes unchecked.

Not every logical discussion in regards to the progression of an issue can be reasonably labeled a fallacious argument because we know from past experiences that corporations will shove as much mandatory advertising in our collective faces as they can legally get away with.

Again, I was using an extreme as an example to specifically address your apathy regarding the issue of the ad. Your entire argument comes down to a shoulder shrug and the notion that at two minutes, the issue is minimal. My reason, rhetorical as it may have been, was to essentially ask you the question: If two minutes is acceptable, what isn't?

I'm not asserting or predicting anything specific; what I am postulating is that such an ad, foisted upon the consumer who purchases a full-priced game, is both unprecedented and sets a potentially precarious standard that could be further exploited by either EA or other publishers, assuming it goes unchecked.

Not every logical discussion in regards to the progression of an issue can be reasonably labeled a fallacious argument because we know from past experiences that corporations will shove as much mandatory advertising in our collective faces as they can legally get away with.Grammaton-Cleric

That's the problem with extreme examples, they usually fail to illustrate anything in the real world.

So, what's unacceptable? That's a good question. But at this point I don't know (nor do I care, since right now what we have is a 2 minutes ad, nothing else).

And I'm sure we'll be seeing EA (andother companies) doing this, butunless we see the contrary it'sreasonable to assume it won't be nothing drastically different that what EA did. Which still isn't a big deal.

Well that sucks. Its going to be horrible renting these games that require an online pass now. If they pull this crap with Dead Space 2 :evil:

yup i hate it too.

the online code thing pissed me off when i rented MOH as well. i just wanted to try and see if I;d like the multiplayer but they have it locked so **** them.

S0lidSnake

Wait, what? That seriously had an online code? I didn't need to enter one to play it online. Then again I did buy BFBC2 and have that VIP status mumbo jumbo

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]Again, I was using an extreme as an example to specifically address your apathy regarding the issue of the ad. Your entire argument comes down to a shoulder shrug and the notion that at two minutes, the issue is minimal. My reason, rhetorical as it may have been, was to essentially ask you the question: If two minutes is acceptable, what isn't?

I'm not asserting or predicting anything specific; what I am postulating is that such an ad, foisted upon the consumer who purchases a full-priced game, is both unprecedented and sets a potentially precarious standard that could be further exploited by either EA or other publishers, assuming it goes unchecked.

Not every logical discussion in regards to the progression of an issue can be reasonably labeled a fallacious argument because we know from past experiences that corporations will shove as much mandatory advertising in our collective faces as they can legally get away with.IronBass

That's the problem with extreme examples, they usually fail to illustrate anything in the real world.

So, what's unacceptable? That's a good question. But at this point I don't know (nor do I care, since right now what we have is a 2 minutes ad, nothing else).

And I'm sure we'll be seeing EA (andother companies) doing this, butunless we see the contrary it'sreasonable to assume it won't be nothing drastically different that what EA did. Which still isn't a big deal.

But the 15 minute example, which you've grasped onto, wasn't even the crux of my initial point. I gave you other more plausible scenarios, including ads that could venture closer to the 3-5 minute mark, yet all you can do is clumsily fumble at the 15 minute comment because you have nothing else to argue.

The real point is that your apathy is precisely what companies like EA count on because by sitting back and shrugging off the issue due to the small increment of time it represents, it gives them the agency and fortitude to do it again and possibly increase the time of the next ad or include several more ads.

What is ironic is that you claim my extreme example has no application in "the real world" when in reality it is you who is trafficking in examples of rhetoric that falter when applied to a more realistic rubric. The pervasive nature of advertising and the aggressive manner in which it is foisted upon the populace suggests that allowing such a transgression would inevitably lead more such intrusive ads, something supported by history.

Ultimately it was you who entered into this discussion and frankly, your original position, that the duration of the ad negates it as a serious issue, is puerile and vapid. If you are so completely entrenched in apathy regarding the issue, why post at all?

But the 15 minute example, which you've grasped onto, wasn't even the crux of my initial point. I gave you other more plausible scenarios, including ads that could venture closer to the 3-5 minute mark, yet all you can do is clumsily fumble at the 15 minute comment because you have nothing else to argue.

The real point is that your apathy is precisely what companies like EA count on because by sitting back and shrugging off the issue due to the small increment of time it represents, it gives them the agency and fortitude to do it again and possibly increase the time of the next ad or include several more ads.

What is ironic is that you claim my extreme example has no application in "the real world" when in reality it is you who is trafficking in examples of rhetoric that falter when applied to a more realistic rubric. The pervasive nature of advertising and the aggressive manner in which it is foisted upon the populace suggests that allowing such a transgression would inevitably lead more such intrusive ads, something supported by history.

Ultimately it was you who entered into this discussion and frankly, your original position, that the duration of the ad negates it as a serious issue, is puerile and vapid. If you are so completely entrenched in apathy regarding the issue, why post at allGrammaton-Cleric

5 minutes was your only alternative scenario, which indeed, seems way more plausible than "a plethora of ads". But it's 5 minutes only once. Kinda bothersome, yes, but still not a big deal. Another 5 minutes and I don't think I'll even remember there was an add.

And I don't talk about a 15 minutes because there's nothing to talkabout.There aren't 15 minutes ads and there's nothing that indicates there will be 15 minutes ads anytime soon. As I said, when/if 15 minutes ads come, I'll talk about them. Until then, it's just blowing things wayout of proportion.

Secondly, so what if my apathy is what makes EA do it again? That changes nothing. It's still not a big deal. EA probably thinks the same, that 2 minutes ads aren't a big thing and that most people won't even care 5 minutes later. And they are right.

And why do I post? Because I want to. But that's a bit offtopic (especially because you were the one that started arguing with me). ;)

yeah it sucks. but its a 1 time thing and not really that big of a deal

dog_dirt

That's how it always starts. They start out small and then blindside you later.

Crackdown's on-disc DLC wasn't a big deal either and now you've got assassin's creed hiding parts of the game you paid for with it. But hey no big deal. We'll just complain when it's too late to do anything about it. Yeah that sounds good....

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

To those saying a one time 2 minute ad isn't a big deal. You're right, it's not. Gaming ismerely ahobby after all and being forced to watch a commerical once is definitely not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. A big deal would be Sarah Palin getting elected as the u.s preisdent in 2012 or more U.S soldiers dying in Afghanistan this year than anyother year.

This is a video game forum, this is what we talk about. Framerate issues, graphics and game design issues. NONE of the that is a big deal of course, but that is what we are here to talk about. Stuff like this is a minor inconvience but it's our right to complain about it. Especially since video games are so goddamn expensive. I will tolerate and do tolerate unskippable ads on Hulu because i know the content is free there. But if i am spending almost $70 buying a game and then being forced to watch an ad then yes, in the video game world, this IS a big deal.

Like Grammaton said, this sets up a bad precedent. Where would it stop? it was PAINFUL logging on to Xbox Live a couple of days before the Kinect Launch. Out of the six or so tabs on the dashboard, 5 of them had Kinect ads one form or another. The only page that didnt have the Kinect ads were the Friends tab and your own game page. It was disgusting.

IronBass

Just like you have the right to complain (no one has said you don't) we have the right to say it isn't a big deal. Which brings us back to the start.

And I can't really understand how "disgusting" the dashboard could have looked those 10 seconds before launchingthe game.

well my xbox live failed toconnect most of those two days fable 3 still lags thanks to that stupid kinect update two more valid complaints.kayoticdreamz

well my xbox live failed toconnect most of those two days fable 3 still lags thanks to that stupid kinect update two more valid complaints.

kayoticdreamz

With all due respect, that has nothing to do with the main discussion here.

5 minutes was your only alternative scenario, which indeed, seems way more plausible than "a plethora of ads". But it's 5 minutes only once. Kinda bothersome, yes, but still not a big deal. Another 5 minutes and I don't think I'll even remember there was an add.

And I don't talk about a 15 minutes because there's nothing to talkabout.There aren't 15 minutes ads and there's nothing that indicates there will be 15 minutes ads anytime soon. As I said, when/if 15 minutes ads come, I'll talk about them. Until then, it's just blowing things wayout of proportion.

Secondly, so what if my apathy is what makes EA do it again? That changes nothing. It's still not a big deal. EA probably thinks the same, that 2 minutes ads aren't a big thing and that most people won't even care 5 minutes later. And they are right.

And why do I post? Because I want to. But that's a bit offtopic (especially because you were the one that started arguing with me). ;)

IronBass

Please understand, this isn't an argument; you've offered nothing substantial enough to truly debate and instead you've tried to redirect the issue into a discussion of logic and rhetoric without really stating much of anything. My responses were specifically created in such a way as to see if you had anything to actually add that was substantive and you clearly don't. I love a good discussion and enjoy reasonable argumentation but your facile rhetorical style makes it difficult to glean much in the way of a salient point.

When somebody proudly proclaims: "I post because I can.", what you are really saying is I talk even when I have nothing to say. You clearly have no problem with this practice and admit that were the ads to increase in either quantity or frequency you would still have no problem with it, which isn't so much an argument regarding the issue but rather a statement of acquiescence. Even more puzzling is that you employ much more flagrant examples of fallacious reasoning than you accuse me of to buoy your own opinion, including the presumption that "most" people would share your viewpoint and that they would be "right" in doing so.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]But the 15 minute example, which you've grasped onto, wasn't even the crux of my initial point. I gave you other more plausible scenarios, including ads that could venture closer to the 3-5 minute mark, yet all you can do is clumsily fumble at the 15 minute comment because you have nothing else to argue.

The real point is that your apathy is precisely what companies like EA count on because by sitting back and shrugging off the issue due to the small increment of time it represents, it gives them the agency and fortitude to do it again and possibly increase the time of the next ad or include several more ads.

What is ironic is that you claim my extreme example has no application in "the real world" when in reality it is you who is trafficking in examples of rhetoric that falter when applied to a more realistic rubric. The pervasive nature of advertising and the aggressive manner in which it is foisted upon the populace suggests that allowing such a transgression would inevitably lead more such intrusive ads, something supported by history.

Ultimately it was you who entered into this discussion and frankly, your original position, that the duration of the ad negates it as a serious issue, is puerile and vapid. If you are so completely entrenched in apathy regarding the issue, why post at allIronBass

5 minutes was your only alternative scenario, which indeed, seems way more plausible than "a plethora of ads". But it's 5 minutes only once. Kinda bothersome, yes, but still not a big deal. Another 5 minutes and I don't think I'll even remember there was an add.

And I don't talk about a 15 minutes because there's nothing to talkabout.There aren't 15 minutes ads and there's nothing that indicates there will be 15 minutes ads anytime soon. As I said, when/if 15 minutes ads come, I'll talk about them. Until then, it's just blowing things wayout of proportion.

Secondly, so what if my apathy is what makes EA do it again? That changes nothing. It's still not a big deal. EA probably thinks the same, that 2 minutes ads aren't a big thing and that most people won't even care 5 minutes later. And they are right.

And why do I post? Because I want to. But that's a bit offtopic (especially because you were the one that started arguing with me). ;)

I believe you're missing his point here, and you just keep dodging around the issue at hand. Plain and simple, he's saying this could (and likely will be) be the start of more intrusive, unskippable advertising in games. And while you may think you're too cool to be bothered by it now, it could very well become astandard in the future -- which is the point of this thread. As far as I can tell, this is the first time this has been featured in a console game, and EA is obviously looking to see how people react to it. By your nonchalant attitude, you're displaying the receptive mentality that EA execs salivate over. You are exactly what they hope fo r-- someone who defends a money-hungry corporate giant who's already swimming in millions, while you sit happily by your TV in your rented 1 bedroom apartment (hypothetically speaking) and make excuses for them. Maybe you should purchase stock in EA, you already defend them like you do. :lol:

Are you the type of person who ignores a storm warning until lightning strikes your house? :P

Please understand, this isn't an argument; you've offered nothing substantial enough to truly debate and instead you've tried to redirect the issue into a discussion of logic and rhetoric without really stating much of anything. My responses were specifically created in such a way as to see if you had anything to actually add that was substantive and you clearly don't. I love a good discussion and enjoy reasonable argumentation but your facile rhetorical style makes it difficult to glean much in the way of a salient point.

When somebody proudly proclaims: "I post because I can.", what you are really saying is I talk even when I have nothing to say. You clearly have no problem with this practice and admit that were the ads to increase in either quantity or frequency you would still have no problem with it, which isn't so much an argument regarding the issue but rather a statement of acquiescence. Even more puzzling is that you employ much more flagrant examples of fallacious reasoning than you accuse me of to buoy your own opinion, including the presumption that "most" people would share your viewpoint and that they would be "right" in doing so.

Grammaton-Cleric

First (before I forget), the part about being right was about EA. Considering that this advertising issue has gone mostly unnoted (which kinda backs ups my assumption that most people simply don't care about it), EA are right thinking it won't be a big deal.

Secondly, I have no argument because there's no discussion left. What's there to discuss? Will we have 15 minutes ad? There's nothing that indicates they will, so what can be argued about it? Not much. There will be or there will be not. That's actually it.

What else? If 2 minutes is a big deal? Well, it isn't to me, so there isn't much else to say about it.

The way I see it there are 3 things you can discuss about this ads (the fact itself, the principle and the reasonable possible consequences), and I've talked about the 3 of them.

If you think I don't have anything else to say, you would be correct, I don't. I don't see anything else to discuss about this. Of course, we could starta dding"what's if" (likeidk, 20 minutes ads and so on), but I see no reason to do such a thing because of a 2 minutes add.

At the end of the day, if you are getting bored of talking to me, or think you've heard anything I have to say (which is actually true), you can stop the conversation anytime. :)

I believe you're missing his point here, and you just keep dodging around the issue at hand. Plain and simple, he's saying this could (and likely will be) be the start of more intrusive, unskippable advertising in games. And while you may think you're too cool to be bothered by it now, it could very well become astandard in the future -- which is the point of this thread. As far as I can tell, this is the first time this has been featured in a console game, and EA is obviously looking to see how people react to it. By your nonchalant attitude, you're displaying the receptive mentality that EA execs salivate over. You are exactly what they hope fo r-- someone who defends a money-hungry corporate giant who's already swimming in millions, while you sit happily by your TV in your rented 1 bedroom apartment (hypothetically speaking) and make excuses for them. Maybe you should purchase stock in EA, you already defend them like you do. :lol:

Are you the type of person who ignores a storm warning until lightning strikes your house? :P

Jbul

I don't think I'm cool because it does not bother me. That would be a very bad reason for feeling cool, don't you think? >_>

And I'm actually a very prudent person. Just that I don't see anything from a 2 minutes add that worries me. A storm would, but this is really a non-issue.

Besides, the ad was for Shift 2, right? The fact that it was a related game ad makes iteven less of a deal.

Next thing you know they'll pop up every time you load the game and as obnoxious as DVD/Blu-ray movies.DJ_Lae

Nope, all I have to do on my DVD player software is to click "Next" and it skips the previews.:)

Cyberlink PowerDVD ftw.:P

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Unskippable ads blow. It's a shame that paid gaming is coming to this.Jbul

While the ad itself is irriatating, what's more alarming is the slippery slope this kind of developer behavior could lead to. The online pass idea first, then this. What's next? Buying the game, then paying online everytime I want to access a new track in the game? Oh wait, some games are already like that. ;/

I personally like watching those ads, but I understand how you feel with getting a new game and being excited to play. Kind of like waiting for installation timesidk761

[QUOTE="idk761"]I personally like watching those ads, but I understand how you feel with getting a new game and being excited to play. Kind of like waiting for installation timesjust_nonplussed

Yes. This is the big difference people can't wrap their heads around. You're paying for entertainment, not to be subjected to crap like that when you drop nearly a C-note on a game. Especially in this economy.

Movies have advertisements when you buy them, but they're skippable, as mentioned above.

TV shows have advertising, but they're free to watch. Monumental differences.

I personally like watching those ads, but I understand how you feel with getting a new game and being excited to play. Kind of like waiting for installation timesidk761

Installation times are different. But they are frustrating sometimes :) I liked how MGS4 had the picture of snake smoking. Somehow that was entertaining in it's own way.

Yes. This is the big difference people can't wrap their heads around. You're paying for entertainment, not to be subjected to crap like that when you drop nearly a C-note on a game. Especially in this economy.

Movies have advertisements when you buy them, but they're skippable, as mentioned above.

TV shows have advertising, but they're free to watch. Monumental differences.

Jbul

This comment reminded me of something I've wondered about, and I'm curious to hear other's opinions on it; what about in-game advertising? By that I mean ads which are integrated into the game itself, like seeing a board ad for a certain snack food in NHL 2010 or finding a brand name battery while playing Pikmin 2. Movies and TV have the same problem, but should the same standard be shared?

Personally I get annoyed at any full price game that tries to sneak ads in. I've heard people claim that they add realism to a game because we live in such an ad permeated world, but shouldn't I recieve some sort of compensation for being subjected to them? This wouldn't be as much an issue if a game that came with sponsers were discounted (such as the dreadful free Yaris XBLA game), but as it stands I avoid games that have such insidious forms of advertisements because they distract me and make me wonder why I paid full price for a game that's being supported by ads.

To me, these unskippable ads EA is putting in their games seems more like an extention of those in-game ads. And just as a caveat, I'm aware this has been going on for decades (eg. the Cool Spot games and countless other shameless ad-centric games), but usually those games were dreadful and completely forgettable. I'm more annoyed when quality games have ads attached to them such as the case described by the original poster.

What I do not like about it is that this could be just the start of moving to even more stuff like this. At Some point they are going to have a gaming brake that can not be skipped. During these "breaks" they will show a few ads downloaded from online which is require Single player too. All this because as "game company can stop pirated copies."

My main point is that they take one step and they will take another.

What I do not like about it is that this could be just the start of moving to even more stuff like this. At Some point they are going to have a gaming brake that can not be skipped. During these "breaks" they will show a few ads downloaded from online which is require Single player too. All this because as "game company can stop pirated copies."

My main point is that they take one step and they will take another.

wiouds

In-game commercials?

Wow....

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

What I do not like about it is that this could be just the start of moving to even more stuff like this. At Some point they are going to have a gaming brake that can not be skipped. During these "breaks" they will show a few ads downloaded from online which is require Single player too. All this because as "game company can stop pirated copies."

My main point is that they take one step and they will take another.

anthonycg

In-game commercials?

Wow....

This is off-topic but man, that'sa cool signature pic you've got. Is that your Shepherd? Pretty bada**.

It's kinda annoying, but returning a game over this is taking it several bridges too far if you ask me.

It's kinda annoying, but returning a game over this is taking it several bridges too far if you ask me.

DraugenCP

I'm not going to return it. It wouldn't accomplish anything, I'd just get the trade value anyway.

The game itself is fun for sure, but my opinion of the game was lowered too much to enjoy it fully, I believe.

[QUOTE="anthonycg"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

What I do not like about it is that this could be just the start of moving to even more stuff like this. At Some point they are going to have a gaming brake that can not be skipped. During these "breaks" they will show a few ads downloaded from online which is require Single player too. All this because as "game company can stop pirated copies."

My main point is that they take one step and they will take another.

Jbul

In-game commercials?

Wow....

This is off-topic but man, that'sa cool signature pic you've got. Is that your Shepherd? Pretty bada**.

Oh yeah lol. I'm too lazy to do all that fancy stuff so I just smacked on a picture. :D

TV shows have advertising, but they're free to watch. Monumental differences.

Jbul

Not really. Technically, you would have to get yourself subscribed to a TV service, like Comcast, and would still have to pay for it to use it.

I'm actually surprised it's not more common. Some PC installers used to do this - I remember a number of CRPGs back in the 90s popping up preview videos for other RPGs and you couldn't skip them. At least it only does it once. Next thing you know they'll pop up every time you load the game and as obnoxious as DVD/Blu-ray movies.DJ_Lae

[QUOTE="IxX3xil3d0n3XxI"]Adds really arnt that bad, stop blowing it out of proportion. Its like going to a movie theater you're going to see adds anywhere they help pay for stuff. If 2 minutes of your life was that jeopardized by adds than get up and get a drink or make a sandwich. chasingmaynard

I have a better suggestion of what TC and all of the crybabies could do with 2 minutes of their life... Probably less than 2 minutes, depending on what they use.

And don't leave a note. Notes are sooooo 2000's...

I, and the rest of the forum, appreciate your mature contribution to the thread.

Thank you.

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

TV shows have advertising, but they're free to watch. Monumental differences.

Metamania

Not really. Technically, you would have to get yourself subscribed to a TV service, like Comcast, and would still have to pay for it to use it.

True. But there is still "free" TV out there, believe it or not. My point is that you aren't paying specifically to watch a TV episode. If you were, and then they forced you watch unskippable ads, I think this would be a comparably loathesome comparison. ;)