Ads Retroactively Added To Wipeout HD, Soon Others

An anonymous reader writes "American users of Wipeout HD might have noticed that there's an advertisement showing up all of a sudden during loading, both during online and offline play. This, according to a poster on the well-known gaming forum NeoGAF, is being done covertly. The writer suspects that the display software was installed during update 2.01, and the ad-content is now being snuck in. Gamasutra has a story on the company responsible for the software to deliver these ads, Double Fusion, which said it plans to launch in-game advertising in 'another handful' of PS3 games by the end of the year. So, what's next? Can we look forward to fighting the Kool-Aid Man and zombified Mars bars in Uncharted, or is there anything that can be done to hinder companies from adding advertisements retroactively, without the customer's prior knowledge?"

Comments

Ad blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

In your router. I'm looking at you DD-WRT.

Re:Ad blocking

[gmezero]

This is only going to work if the ad server is not on Sony's delivery system.

And here I was planning to buy the DLC this week. I'm seriously reconsidering that idea. :(

I think if we want to protest this, refuse to buy the expansion release. Unfortunately the reality is you'll likely end up in the minority as most of the sheeple out there don't care enough to fight this.

Re:Ad blocking

[Goldberg's Pants]

Yep. I'd estimate in my experience for every 20 or so people who say "Screw them, I'm not buying that", 1 will actually follow through.

I've boycotted a hell of a lot of games over the years due to copy protection, greed of the developer etc... I realise my boycott makes no difference to the company. But it does make a difference to me.

Sony will make more money from the advertising than they'll lose from disgruntled customers sadly, until such time as the consumer at large grows a set and stands up to say "Enough".

Re:Ad blocking

[gmezero]

FWIW, I just fired up my PS3 and refused the 2.01 update (I never played the game online anyways) and no advertisements. I know the other site is saying that it may not be tied to the update but unless I start seeing them I'll conclude that it is.

So, that settles that. I'm not buying the DLS or accepting the 2.01 update.

Re:Ad blocking

[Runaway1956]

Realizing that 50% of consumers lack the genes necessary to "grow a set", I stand by, ready to offer the use of my set. For a small recompense, of course. The wife wouldn't like me to be giving it away for free. (She is so mercenary!)

Re:Ad blocking

[westlake]

Yep. I'd estimate in my experience for every 20 or so people who say "Screw them, I'm not buying that", 1 will actually follow through.

I'd say it is much worse than that.

How many gamers will even bother to - pretend - that they are going to boycott a game or a publisher?

Re:Ad blocking

[Anachragnome]

To mod or reply...to mod or reply...

REPLY!

From the summary:
"is there anything that can be done to hinder companies from adding advertisements retroactively" ...and you nailed it. Don't buy their products anymore. While not a retroactive solution, proactive is better then no solution.
When they see sales start to drop, along with the increase in complaints, the money starts to talk.

Re:Ad blocking

[Jurily]

Don't buy their products anymore. While not a retroactive solution, proactive is better then no solution.

Sell it back to them, saying "that wasn't part of the deal".

Oh, and it's 2009 now, any game that still requires a loading screen should die out soon. Seriously, loading screens were fine on C64s and 286s, now my fucking laptop has 3 Gb of RAM. USE IT.

Re:Ad blocking

[mwvdlee]

It's not a loading screen.
It's an advertisement screen disguised as a loading screen which attempt to "load in" enough data to satisfy the display time agreed upon with the client.

Re:Ad blocking

[SlashWombat]

How about a user initiated DDOS attack? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) A few thousand people continuously (and aggressively pinging the relevant servers might get the message through to the greedy bastards who think adverts in games is a good idea. Supposedly, adverts in television is what pays the bills (Although, pay TV in Australia has grown to have 8 minutes of ads in any 30 minute time slot, go figure ... GREED again!)

Re:Ad blocking

[AmiMoJo]

Rather than boycotting the game, it would be better if people who already bought it returned it for a refund.

Not only does that send the right message (we like your game and will pay for it, but are not willing to put up with adverts and you messing with it after we bought it), but it is far more visible than people not buying the game. You can't count the number of lost sales, but you can count the number of refunds you had to process.

Re:Ad blocking

[jimthehorsegod]

Actually, this raises a good point. There are plenty of boycotts I remember committing to - RIAA label music for one thing (I'll allow buying it 2nd hand) but you know I'm pretty sure that I've forgotten several of the things I've decided I don't buy/use/support anymore, purely from letting them slip out of my mind..

Perhaps we could organise a list on /. that we're all boycotting? That'd be a useful tool. It'd be useless propaganda because of the 1-in-20 ratio you mention (and I'll bet it's more depressing even than that) but it'd help my frail memory!

Re:Ad blocking

[Dr. Hellno]

I'm not sure if things are different down in the U.S., but up here in Canada most of the major retailers don't take returns on videogames (or any digital media) anymore. You can always sell it second-hand, but once you've opened the box there's no full refunds.

Re:Ad blocking

[Razalhague]

Yeah, I'm being pedantic, but females actually have more genes than males. They don't lack the genes necessary to "grow a set", they have extra genes that prevent that from happening.

Re:Ad blocking

[iainl]

Since I was going to have to buy a PS3 to get the game (and yes, I'm such an utter WipEout addict that I was seriously considering doing so; as I've got a 360 and a Blu-ray player already it's about the only exclusive that tempts me), then yes, this is the final straw to tip me away again. I've held out this long, I can continue to do so until the ads get removed again.

Re:Ad blocking

[msimm]

Your boycott makes a difference, in face the only language we have in common with business is money. You just have to think about it:

1) people, somewhat erratically protest and make noise about something (maybe 1 in 10 follow through, at best).
2) some people have ties to media through friends or families or as media representatives themselves (probably more technical minded media professionals then in a lot of other professions).
3) Your representative may also be a person who may or may not be familiar or possibly even interested in the plight.

Add this up over time (if it's an ongoing problem) and you'll see it compounding then add the various moral objectors and malcontents and in the case of digital media (specifically) you get piracy and various forms of [user] malice and you start to see the media circus that's likely to cost the companies not just inconvenience, but money and possibly even credibility.

Companies like the RIAA/MPAA or software publishers that fail to respond to markets are really at risk losing control (distribution) of their own products as the free market moves like water around them. aren't just dealing with citizen protests but risk loosing control of their own product

Re:Ad blocking

[theydidnthavemyname]

Yeah, but i'm being even more pedantic... Males have genes to make them grow a pair which women lack. Its called SRY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY

Re:Ad blocking

[Razalhague]

Okay, you win.

Re:Ad blocking

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Realizing that 50% of consumers lack the genes necessary to "grow a set"

Consumers may be quick to roll over, but the thing to remember about video game players is that they use their products for quite a bit longer than most comparable ones. An average game will last at the very least 10 hours. A good game 40+. A great game 200+ hours.

Now, from this standpoint, it's easy to see why marketing execs want in on video game screen time. However, as a game player, I can say with some certainty that this is going to seriously hurt the bottom line of any company that tries to pull this stunt.

People play video games to get away from it all. Despite IP based multiplayer becoming commonplace, playing video games is still essentially a private pastime, played alone in sitting rooms or bedrooms, and is an exercise far more akin to reading a book than watching a film. When you throw an ad into a video game, you tear people out of the immersion of the experience. You remind them obtusely of the real world and how shallow it can be. You pop the bubble of the happy fantasy they were indulging themselves in, and then continue to pop it time and again with every advertisement. Eventually, the game is worth far less than the price they paid for it.

I compared video games to books, which I think is as fair and accurate a comparison as can be made between "new" and "old" media. It's useful to look to see how the publishing industry has integrated advertisements into its products over its 250+ year existence. In short, it hasn't. The most you get from books is publisher's ads for other books in the series or genre. You most certainly do not have ads strewn intermittently throughout the text, or have passages such as Galadriel giving Frodo the gift of a refreshing glass of Coca-Cola.

I will never buy Bionic Commando. To me, it is, and always will be, "That Pepsi Game". I can't spend 10+ hours being drawn into a story and setting while being constantly being reminded of taste tests and the Spice Girls. I will never play Wipeout HD either. More importantly, I will never buy their sequels. I fairly sure I won't be alone. Gamers play games to get away from advertisements. If you start putting them in your game, they'll play others just to get away from you.

Re:Ad blocking

[Runaway1956]

theydidnthavemyname put up an interesting link. I actually thought you were correct, when I read your reply. Hmmm. Let's just say that I don't know, nor do I really care to study, the exact differences between male and female on the microcosmic level. Up here in the macrocosm, I know what appeals to me, and I'm happy that there ARE differences. ;-)

Re:Ad blocking

[Razalhague]

I actually thought you were correct, when I read your reply.

So did I when I wrote it :D.

Re:Ad blocking

[Nathrael]

Alright...

Microsoft
RIAA/MPAA (yay, TPB!)
Electronic Arts
The Republican Party
The Democrat Party
Capitalism/Communism/Socialism/Corporatism (well, you've got to pick one not to boycott here)
The right to bear arms (NOEZ! GUNS KILL PEOPLE!)
Emacs
Vim
CowboyNeal
FIRST POSTers
Red links to articles
Ads on the Internet (yay, AdBlock Plus!)
Left 4 Dead 2 (aka Zombies 8 my brain)
Scientology (except for Xenu, who is our new overlord)
Intelligent Design
Soviet Russia
People opposing tinfoil hats (iEl MEX...TINFOIL HAT ES EL MEJOR!)
Slashdot 2.0 (at least we'd probably do if we could)
Surveillance
The UK (aka Oceania)
Sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads
Over 9000 memes that have no place on pseudo-intellectual /.

Feel free to expand the list however you'd like to.

Re:Ad blocking

[TheRaven64]

Is that legal in Canada? I was under the impression that you had similar consumer-protection laws to us (UK). Here, you can return anything within 28 days without needing to state a reason as long as you return all of the packaging (although the store may charge a restocking fee and may only give you the refund in store credit) and you may return anything within one year of sale if it is not suitable for the purpose for which sold.

Re:Ad blocking

[TheRaven64]

now my fucking laptop has 3 Gb of RAM. USE IT

I'm going to assume you meant 3GB, not 3Gb, because 384MB is a pretty small amount for a modern laptop. A typical laptop hard disk can manage a 10MB/s sustained transfer rate. Loading 3GB from disk will, therefore, take about 5 minutes. Obviously the game won't use all of your memory, but even if it's only loading 300MB of data it will take a good 30 second. You can generate game data algorithmically instead, but then you need to wait for the CPU to generate it. A lot of games compress things like textures on disk, because a modern CPU can decompress them faster than the disk can load them (it then recompresses them with a different algorithm to save some video RAM).

Ideally, of course, the game should do all of this loading asynchronously, loading just enough to display the menu and then loading everything else in the background. Just having more RAM, however, does nothing to help loading times unless your OS has already speculatively cached the game data.

Re:Ad blocking

[supernova_hq]

Canada has some of the best consumer rights laws in the WORLD. The problem is convincing the grade 10 that runs the counter or his boss who was too stupid to get out of retail that suchs laws exist.

Re:Ad blocking

[supernova_hq]

People who reply to retorical comments with large lists...?

Re:Ad blocking

[ta bu shi da yu]

Hey... while you are one of the ones who won't buy the game, I'd say you aren't their market. I suspect that the game creators must be getting advise from spammer-extraordinaire Jeremy Jaynes - the general principle being that if you get one hit for every 1,000 emails sent, but you send several billion emails then you can make a quite good business out of spam.

Re:Ad blocking

[ikkonoishi]

Sony pulled the ads.
http://www.n4g.com/News-371384.asp

Re:Ad blocking

[Sockatume]

They pulled the ad when they found out it changed the load time. They had an agreement with the ad provider that any ads would match the game's aesthetic, too.

Re:Ad blocking

[MeatBag PussRocket]

i For one, think the industry has been handling game advertising _all wrong_ it strikes me as bizarre that somehow they believe taht what works in the real world wont work in a game. so lets apply the idea here:

in the real world when you're driving, does the car *not start* until you've watched a commercial? no, but there are cheesy radio ads (if you chose to listen to the radio) and there are billboards all over the place. why not ad billboards in the game? you can change who advertises on them when their contract expires, they're not an annoyance, and it can actually add to the immersion. or instead of constantly thumping techno music, an announcer could just say "this race is brought to you by state farm" (as the youtube example depicts. i think about this in games all the time, from call of duty4 to Eve online, its one of the few places i actually wouldnt mind seeing current and frequently rotated ads. if its done right, it could really add to a game even, not to mention accomplishing and advertisers goal of reaching a target market, gamers can spent _lots_ of time playing and if those ads are _IN GAME_ in a non distracting manner, then everyone wins. the ads work purely by their virtue of being there.

Re:Ad blocking

[amoeba1911]

females actually do "grow a set" too, they are just kept inside and they function slightly differently.

Re:Ad blocking

[mcgrew]

Unfortunately the reality is you'll likely end up in the minority as most of the sheeple out there don't care enough to fight this.

Their XCP rootkit didn't seem to adversely affect their sales. Except seemingly to people like me who were victimized by it. Why should Sony care?

Re:Ad blocking

[silent_artichoke]

Looking at a girl's "set"... you're doing it wrong.

Re:Ad blocking

[MikeBabcock]

What's the problem exactly? There's already been advertising in games for a long time (not the least of which are sports titles, and the Burnout series' billboards). If the ads stand out or are in poor taste, then the game will suffer. If they don't, or they're well targeted, then who cares?

Personally I'm thoroughly enjoying the expansion.

Re:Ad blocking

[eigenstates]

Was going to buy. Now not. It reminds me of double taxation- pay once and pay some more. But there is no constitution protecting us from advertisers.

Re:Ad blocking

[AmiMoJo]

Well, I'm in the UK are things are different here. A lot of places will try to refuse refunds on software if the packaging has been opened, but since you have to open the packaging to read the EULA etc in practice they have no choice.

Re:Ad blocking

[PaganRitual]

I'm not buying it because of this. But as to how long that will last, I don't know. Sometimes you've gotta wonder what it's worth when, as you say, the majority of people just bend over and take what their given, and in the end you just miss out on the good stuff and don't achieve anything.

I mean, I was like this with Steam. And then I read the other week that Steam sales are through the roof.

The marketing people at Valve must have seriously signed a deal with the devil to get gamers to on the one hand to insist that DRM is bad and then, in some cases in the same sentence, to suggest that Steam is the future.

So I decided to give in and bought Dawn of War 2 during the sale. The mocking from my gamer friends has yet to cease.

Re:Ad blocking

[Anachragnome]

That ratio for ads/content is sitting right about 50/50 on the Comcast cable I have in the Pacific NW of the U.S.A.

Its not really worth paying for anymore(I won't be when I move next month).

Re:Ad blocking

[Scarletdown]

So this is a game that is not good enough to turn a profit on its own merits I presume? Otherwise, there is no need to shove advertising at the players who purchased the game to play instead of to watch commercials.

Sounds like something I would not want to bother purchasing if it is so craptacular they have to sell ad space in the game. Then again, it's a Sony product, and Sony is already on my No Buy List.

Re:Ad blocking

[Faw]

Okay, you win.

You must be new to the internets, you never say "You win", you try to:

• 1. destroy his credibility
• 2. criticize his sources
• 3. call him a noob/troll/nazi
• 4. if you are losing the argument just say you have better things to do that to explain simple things to ignorant people.

If you can mix all of them in one it's an instant argument win:

1. Look you gene nazi (3), you cant trust anything written in wikipedia (2) you probably added that entry yourself! (1). Anyway I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate (4) a noob (3) like you. Just go back to your parents basement (1), you troll (3).

Hope I was of some help to you....

Re:Ad blocking

[ciscoguy01]

If the game is now ad supported Sony should give it away. That would be only fair.
They can't have it both ways. Charge you for the game and make you watch intrusive ads.

ESRB

[Lord Byron II]

Contact the ratings board and complain that the content of the game has changed.

Re:ESRB

[gmezero]

I don't think advertising has any impact on ratings unless the nature of the advertisement is mature content and the game is rated for everyone. I haven't seen the ad yet so we'll have to see.

Re:ESRB

[angelus errare]

I don't have the DLC so I can't confirm anything, but posters on Kotaku have reported that the ads appear even if you aren't connected online. And I don't believe the description of the DLC warns people about this.

Re:ESRB

[ethan0]

may I recommend reading the very first sentence of the summary?

wait, sorry, forgot what site I was on for a moment.

Re:ESRB

[gbarules2999]

There is no issue. It would just be hilarious.

Re:ESRB

[the simurgh]

contact the fcc saying that this new patch is an illegal attempt to end run around the rules governing in game ads and such. as for the koolaide man & zombie fied mars bars can we get this free or will i have to pay. becuase if it's free i'm in.

Re:ESRB

[Toonol]

I don't know about the ESRB, but for movie ratings, even simply reshuffling scenes or cutting scenes OUT will invalidate the rating. This ticked me off, because the 'unrated' Lust, Caution DVD release is actually a censored version of the NR-17 theatrical release.

It doesn't matter that the content added is objectionable or not, but that it is now has different content than what was initially rated. And what if (GASP) they advertised smoking, drinks, or guns!

Re:ESRB

[causality]

so long as it is not offensive, what's the issue?

The point is that a change to the game's content could make them have to go through the ESRB review/rating process all over again, causing delays and maybe additional expenses for them. It'd be a way of making it a bit more of a hassle for them to assume that the game you bought with no such advertisements has now become a billboard.

I think ESRB makes an exception for "online play" (I'd speculate this is because of the difficulty/undesirability of censoring the other players) but it seems there were changes to offline play as well.

Re:ESRB

[LihTox]

Advertising is an (often feeble, granted) attempt at mind control, and therefore offensive by definition.

Re:ESRB

[Arker]

I rather think if this were a game I had already paid for, sans ads, that suddenly started showing them I would find the change quite offensive.

Re:ESRB

[poetmatt]

They appear during online and offline play. However, that's a pretty bullshit disclaimer for them to use though. That is like the "your contract terms may change without notice" that got certain companies sued. Sorry, that's the easiest dig, but there are other examples.

It's called the "you're fucked clause", and companies love it.

Re:ESRB

[PitaBred]

I paid for the game. If they want to inject advertising into it, they should lower the price. This is Sony having it's cake and eating it, too.

Re:ESRB

[blackraven14250]

One problem is that the original content was rated, and the original content is still on the discs they sell. They aren't selling anything different, they're just making you update if you want to post scores online.

Re:ESRB

[DigiShaman]

I paid for the game too. And now they sneak ads in many months later? FUCK THAT! I want them turned off, or have some sort of credit reimbursement. No warning, no nothing. This is seriously wrong on so many levels.

Re:ESRB

[mcrbids]

Advertising is an (often feeble, granted) attempt at mind control, and therefore offensive by definition.

Hate to break it to ye, but advertising serves an extremely vital function of modern society.

When somebody creates a good or service, they need to somehow communicate the availability of this good or service to the prospective public, or the good/service provider and the consumers are both denied the chance to improve their life, which is the definition of what a sale is: two parties agreeing that they are better off trading goods and services for money than not - so they trade.

In *every* transaction, both transactions are under the impression that they have the "upper hand" - both sides stand to gain more by giving up their end of the bargain than keeping it.

Advertising shows two things:

1) The availability of the good or service itself, and

2) By spending lots of money on advertising, the validity of the company in question is verified to the end user.

Think about it: you wouldn't bank at a bank that advertised by spray-painting a bare 4x8 sheet of plywood. A professional, well-designed advertisement shows you, the prospective consumer, that the vendor has the resources it takes to earn your business, and are thus more likely to be able to handle your business.

Sucks, sometimes, and there are certainly abuses of this system. But, and the end of the day, advertising is a begrudged necessity. Sorry you find it offensive.

Re:ESRB

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't think advertising has any impact on ratings unless the nature of the advertisement is mature content and the game is rated for everyone. I haven't seen the ad yet so we'll have to see.

Not the point - they've changed the content so the rating should no longer be valid until it is reviewed again; and every time a new ad is added.

Who knows what they'll advertise; and who cares? I'd contact my representatives in DC and complain - not that there are ads but that you are concerned about the potential content of the ads. After all, you wouldn't want your underage child to see a condom ad (shudder), would you? Think of the children; and make the fight for their sake against the depraved entertainment industry. Remember, it's not about the issue but about winning or losing. If enough representatives get even a handful of letters they may notice.

We can't let Hollywood (I know... Silicon Valley but Hollywood is more of a hot button) do an endrun around a ratings system tehy adopted to avoid Congressional action, could we?

Re:ESRB

[petermgreen]

hot coffee was content that was originally in the game but was locked out. Initially rockstar tried to deny this was the case but this was shown to be BS as people started enabling it on console versions with cheat devices.

Re:ESRB

[tepples]

I paid for the game. If they want to inject advertising into it, they should lower the price.

They could claim that they already lowered the price from $100 to $60.

Re:ESRB

[bit01]

1) The availability of the good or service itself, and

No, it doesn't. How many Cola cola ad's have you seen? Consumers find out what's available locally when they go out to purchase.

2) By spending lots of money on advertising, the validity of the company in question is verified to the end user.

No, it doesn't. Plenty of fly-by-nighters advertise big. All it validates is that somebody has a lot of money. This is not the same as being a worthwhile company.

advertising is a begrudged necessity.

No it isn't. Solicited, classified advertising, including "surprise me" categories, is worthwhile.

Unsolicited, unclassified, mass market advertising, particularly in saturated markets, is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the marketing parasites (= arms dealers). A relatively small number of marketing lowlifes are stealing the lives of huge numbers of people. And the time of our life is the most important thing we have.

Marketers love to conflate solicited, classified advertising and unsolicited, unclassified advertising. Telemarketers particularly. They are not even remotely the same. Capitalism would function quite well with no unsolicited mass market advertising at all. Marketers would hate it of course but that's a bonus.

---

Don't waste your life on marketing drivel/nonsense

Re:ESRB

[migla]

so long as it is not offensive, what's the issue?

Advertising is offensive. It is lying and manipulation. And it works.

(Obviously you or me don't fall for advertising, but many other people do. Otherwise popular shoemakers and other "hip" brands wouldn't spend 2/3 (or whatever) of their budget on it.)

Advertisers should take some advice from Bill Hicks.

Re:ESRB

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But that's the point - the content being placed through advertising has not been approved (or un-approved) by the ratings board; therefore they can no longer state that the original rating on the game still applies.

All that would happen, though, is that Sony would pre-clear the advertising/game combinations. MOre hassle, but it wouldn't stop it.

Re:ESRB

[eigenstates]

There is nothing tin foil about it. Advertising is manipulation. *I* find that offensive. So do many other people. Note the prevalence and download numbers of ad blockers. I make a concerted effort every day to avoid ads. There is no PS3 ad blocker. No choice if the user wants to be advertised to or not. Offensive. And no it's not just this title or this console.

Tired. Back to work.

Re:ESRB

[khellendros1984]

I'd probably look at where it's connecting to, and block that location in my router (assuming that an ad-grabbing connection differs somehow from a log-on or multiplayer data connection). Ads annoy me...it may be worth the effort!

Re:ESRB

[khellendros1984]

But you agreed to purchase the game in its original form for $60. If they degrade the game by adding advertisements *after* your original purchase at $60, then the game isn't worth what you paid for anymore. It's the company stealing value from you, and you don't have any say in the matter. So, regardless if they "dropped their price from $100", that's not the price that you originally payed; it's an irrelevant detail.

Re:ESRB

[Scarletdown]

NCSoft did it right when they briefly toyed with in game advertising in City of Heroes and City of Villains. They actually listened to their customers (aka the paying subscribers) and gave us an option to disable ads, so that instead of a real ad for a product and company that does not exist in the game world, we would see the fake and often humorous ads on the in game billboards that we were accustomed to.

They only sold 2 ads though, which is not a big deal, since they are making plenty from booster packs and other useful micro-transactions. Biggest problem with lack of interest from advertisers is that 150K or so potential viewers was too small for them.

But hopefully, now that the tech is in place for in game ads, they will go ahead and use it to sell ad space to super groups for recruiting purposes. And they could also plug upcoming in game events as well this way.

Re:ESRB

[laurabetterly]

Here's the thing in my estimation. If you are paying for the game, then you should not have to see ads. Now if it's free, that's another story as that's how the developer gets paid. To add to a paid product, well, that's a bit too much.

Re:ESRB

[LihTox]

You make a good point: it is legitimate to introduce the availability of new products, even to remind people about old ones. If we limited advertising to that, it would not be offensive. If only ad agencies agreed to toss out the catchy jingles, the softcore porn, the over-the-top promises, and the pictures of people who are orgasmic for their new carpet cleaner, then I might consider removing my adblocker.

What is particularly disturbing is the use of psychological research on Madison Avenue. Like any computer, our brains have security flaws which allow messages to sneak in without our permission or intent. Madison Avenue is a Black-Hat conference for the mind, and unfortunately our brains are not so easily patched.

All of A sudden

[gumpish]

The expression is "all of a sudden".

The people who say "all of the sudden" are the same people who say "could of" and "for all intensive purposes". You heard something that sounded to you like words you know but didn't apply the critical thinking part of your brain and ask "Does this expression make sense?".

Re:All of A sudden

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they did it on accident? That'd be really ironic.

Re:All of A sudden

[SpectreBlofeld]

"All of a sudden" doesn't really make any sense either. "Suddenly" does work and it's more succinct to boot. /whatever "to boot" means

Re:All of A sudden

[Kral_Blbec]

For all intents and purposes, I think you mean to say "for all intents and purposes".

Re:All of A sudden

[Kalriath]

No, no he didn't.

WHOOOOOOOSH!

Re:All of A sudden

[Jafafa Hots]

I dunno if it's the same. "for all intensive purposes" is clearly an eggcorn. "All of a sudden" may just be a simple malaprop.

Re:All of A sudden

[Anonymous CowHardon]

"Suddenly" means "in the manner of a sudden," or more succinctly, "of a sudden," and to indicate that something isn't only partially of a sudden, we say it's "all of a sudden." We don't use the definite article "the" because there isn't only one particular sudden. (If there were, we might spell at as a proper noun and possibly even worship it. All hail the Almighty Sudden!)

Re:All of A sudden

[causality]

didn't apply the critical thinking part of your brain and ask "Does this expression make sense?".

Can this description include anyone who says "new-key-ler" to describe atomic phenomena?

Re:All of A sudden

[quadrox]

Wish I hadn't spent all my mod points already. These stupid phrases annoy me everytime I see them as well. Oh well...

Re:All of A sudden

[Jafafa Hots]

it IS... "for all intensive purposes" is an eggcorn. Google eggcorn.

Re:All of A sudden

[Jafafa Hots]

I should have made this clearer by saying it SI "for all intents and purposes." The other, "intensive," is an eggcorn...

Re:All of A sudden

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Hehe. When you read the word "sudden" enough times in a row, you realize how silly looking it is.

Re:All of A sudden

[Scarletdown]

And that phrase has obviously evolved and morphed to where "for all intents and purposes" is just as valid and acceptable.

Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[RedK]

Coming in the future ? It's already been done, and it's going to keep being done. This is nothing new and short of not buying games with ads or product placement, good luck getting rid of it.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[Stormwatch]

Some ads and product placement make sense in the context of a game. In sports stadiums or racing tracks, they may even ad realism. You just have to do it right.

But a video during a loading screen -- and worse, making it ten seconds longer? That's NOT acceptable.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[angelus errare]

Yeah, the Red Bull ads in a previous Wipeout game made sense, but State Farm Insurance? Are gamers a big demographic for them?

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[Shadow of Eternity]

Billboards for "Toca Cola" always annoyed me more than anything. I don't care if the gameworld is plastered with real world ads... as long as they fit in. If it's BF2142 style blasted-landscapes that ad had better look the part, if it's some pristine billboard for something that just annoys me.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[FingerSoup]

Yeah, you never know what kind of damage you're going to do when you crash your racer... Life insurance might be handy....

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[Sporkinum]

I have never seen any ads in BF2142, as I blocked the range in my router before I bought the game. Assuming they come from a different server, it shouldn't be to difficult to do.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[blackraven14250]

The majority of the people playing this game that drive the same way in real life probably aren't too concerned about death.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[blackraven14250]

Something that REALLY annoyed me was in Anarchy Online. They had tons of spots where ads went, but only 3 friggin ads to put on all of them. that makes it look totally unrealistic, and it sucked seeing "Sprite Zero" and "Motley Crue" on EVERY DAMN BILLBOARD IN THE GAME.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[quadrox]

Yeah, it seems that it gets more and more difficult for me to buy videogames, because they are all full of shit I don't want (DRM, ads...).

I wish people would start acting like grown ups and outright refuse to buy that sort of crap like me. But apparently most people don't care enough.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[Nathrael]

Problem is, they a) don't but b) instead break the suspension. I didn't really mind the ads in Rainbow Six: Vegas, mainly because they were designed to fit in (more or less) and weren't too intrusive either (I would mind them in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory though, but my game does not connect to the Internet - come on, American ads on a North Korean rocket base?), but I still was a bit angry about the fact that while the publisher made more money with these ads, they didn't lower the price.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[tepples]

Billboards for "Toca Cola" always annoyed me more than anything.

Some video game studios aren't big enough for any major advertisers to give them the time of day. What would you recommend that these studios put on billboards?

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[tepples]

I still was a bit angry about the fact that while the publisher made more money with these ads, they didn't lower the price.

The publisher could argue that the game would have cost $100 without ads. Look at it this way: As the ads on cable TV go up, does the price go down?

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[MikeBabcock]

Do you want to define gamers as a demographic please? You'll probably find they line up very well with first or second time home buyers and often have disposable incomes to purchase other insurable items like cars.

Re:Guitar Hero World tour had ads also

[silent_artichoke]

Ads for their other games

Boycott

[Kell Bengal]

Don't like the way they're treating you as a consumer? Don't buy their products - simple as that. Use the only real power you have as a passive recipient of their products: the power to stop being one. No one is forcing you to buy Super Testosterone Massacre III if you don't want to. You just have to want being treated fairly more than the latest shiny bauble. There are bigger things in life.

Re:Boycott

[Nyall]

Read the summary?
How do you boycott something when the advertisements show up several months after you've bought it?

Re:Boycott

[Kell Bengal]

But not buying their subsequent products, presumably? I refused to buy a single EMI product after I got burned by their disc copy protection - it wouldn't play on my PC, and they have not had a cent from me since.

Re:Boycott

[angelus errare]

Ah, but the problem with this instance is that consumers aren't being warned that installing this new DLC will add, uh, ads to their game. I guess people know now and most are unwilling to upgrade.

Re:Boycott

[interkin3tic]

Super Testosterone Massacre III

Is that a game or a product that they're advertising in wipeout HD?!? EITHER WAY I NEED IT!!!

Re:Boycott

[dwhitaker]

But boycotting does work if somebody hasn't bought the product yet. I was considering buying this game soon but will not be doing so now. This was the deciding factor for me (but may not be for everyone - it isn't like they are going through and substantively changing content).

I did play the demo and noticed advertisements in it which I was fine with (since I did not pay for the content); I had assumed they would be gone once I payed them money though...

Re:Boycott

[trawg]

This is the exact same shit the music and movie industries are trying to pull. It's not really new in software; just check the average EULA from any major vendor - they're trying to make it so you're not buying the game, you're just buying a license to use it temporarily.

I guess at some point it'll come to a head when someone finally cracks the shits and takes someone to court about it. The sooner the better, I reckon.

Re:Boycott

[jd2112]

Boycotts rarely work. First, if every slashdotter were to boycott a large company, the resulting loss of sales would probably ammount to little more than a rounding error. There aren't enough geeks to make a difference and most non-geeks just don't care. Second, the mentality of many content provider companies is that any lost sale for any reason = piracy. Not because the content sucks, not because the poorly designed DRM causes computers to spontaneously explode,(Sony, anyone) it's because of piracy. (If their product sold 100 million copies and there are 6 Billion people on earth there must be 5.9 Billion pirates out there...)

Re:Boycott

[neokushan]

Never underestimate the power of complaining. Not buying their product doesn't tell them much. In all likelihood, they'll employ some asshat sales analyst who will come to the conclusion that sales are dropping because the products aren't marketed in the right way, or that it is because of the recession or some other stupid excuse, rather than work out that the product is actually perfectly fine and that the company itself is to blame for its shortcomings due to pissing off consumers previously.

Even if they do work it out, it'll take them 10 years to do it and by then the problem will be everywhere, so ingrained in that rather than fix it, they'll just re-brand themselves and target a newer, younger audience that's more tolerant of their bullshit.

If just 2% of the people reading this article sent off a quick email to SCEE Liverpool explaining their distaste at the new advertising, there's a good chance that Sony will at least have a meeting with some executives to decide if the revenue it generates is worth the lost customers and, with a bit of luck, they'll accidentally pass a motion to remove it.

But no matter what, always remember to stay positive, cynicism never got anyone anywhere!

Re:Boycott

[Nyall]

I was presuming a boycott would involve the current product at hand. Its a tad hard to boycott Sony Entertainment if you own a PS3.

Re:Boycott

[StreetStealth]

I think you might just have a case here for the ultimate retroactive boycott: the credit card issuer chargeback.

They sold you a game. Then they added a double-dip, "secondary monetization" to what you already paid for. I'd call up MasterCard and see if they've got your back on this.

Honestly, the studio or publisher that did this needs to get hit hard. Ads are for freeloaders, not for paying customers.

Re:Boycott

[Goldberg's Pants]

What do you mean "trying to make it"? EULA's have been that way for well over a decade now.

Sadly I doubt 99% of people will bother raising a stink over this and Sony will rake in the money. As I said earlier, the money they make from whoring the game will be more than they'll lose from upset customers.

Just another reason to add to the reasons I refuse to buy Sony anything.

Re:Boycott

[Seumas]

As someone else pointed out, you can't boycott something if it has no advertising when you paid $15 or $20 for it and months later they bring ads to it. You've already paid the money. All you can do is stop playing the game, which is kind of silly when you've already paid for and own it. All you can really do is contact the companies behind the game and tell them how upset you are and that you'll re-consider ever purchasing their games in the future.

I can almost tolerate in-game advertising in certain situations. However, if I have PAID for a game, I don't want advertisements on my loading screens and I don't want any kind of interstitial. Are they really so hard up that they need your money AND advertising instead of charging for it OR making it ad-sponsored only?

I'd been thinking of buying Wipeout and the new expansion to it. I've changed my mind.

Re:Boycott

[spun]

But no matter what, always remember to stay positive, cynicism never got anyone anywhere!

That's a pretty cynical view of cynicism.

Re:Boycott

[glitch23]

Honestly, the studio or publisher that did this needs to get hit hard. Ads are for freeloaders, not for paying customers.

I assume your logic here only applies to games? The reason I ask is because that logic doesn't apply to television where everyone has to pay (for cable at least, not broadcast) and they still get commercials with the reason from the cable companies of course being that without the commercials we would have to pay even more. Of course, pay even more on top of base amount for premium channels and you finally can get away from commercials from what I last heard. I don't pay for the premium channels so maybe that has changed somewhat.

Re:Boycott

[grim-one]

I think you may run into trouble with your 'chargeback' idea. Technically your credit card only bought funds for your PSN wallet. You got your value there and I think the credit card company will be disinterested in what happens after that.

Re:Boycott

[AHuxley]

Think back to apartheid and human rights campaigns :)
Bright banners, flags, direct reactions from their customers, just like they try in your games.
First they will try and ignore you.
Protest, be on film all the time.
Watch as their rent a goons try and clear a space.
They laugh at you.
Go limp, make them work, get it all on tape.
If they go for the cameras, charge them with destruction of property, keep on filming.
Make sure you get the logos/brand.
As their security is tightened at every event they will react in unexpected ways.
When the Forward Intelligence Team's show up, ask them to reveal their shoulder numbers :)
Film as they press down for too long, charge, gas, taser, run over ect.
Then you get that on film and go to IPCC.
Upload again and again, with the brand names.
Thats how you win :)

Re:Boycott

[Alien Being]

Not quite so simple. They'll never miss your purchase.

It's only when think they're losing many purchases that they'll care. Write to the game company and tell them you're offended by their practice. They're profiting from those ads so they may consider your complaint unimportant.

Also write to the companies whose ads you're seeing. They're paying for the ads and might be more concerned about the negative impression it's giving people.

Re:Boycott

[Slavik81]

More likely, if you do a charge back, Sony will ban your account. Such is the danger of highly DRM'd services.

Re:Boycott

[idlemachine]

I think you might just have a case here for the ultimate retroactive boycott: the credit card issuer chargeback.

I've just spoken to American Express Australia and have been told that I have no grounds to dispute this. Apparently, digitally distributed content is considered a service and not a product, so the same protections don't apply.

Moreover, I was told that unless I had - in writing - something that stated that no advertising would be introduced, I can't raise a complaint. Incredulous, I asked the support person if that mean that unless I had written evidence they wouldn't include hard core pornography in my game, I'd have no grounds for complaining about them introducing it. She replied that with services, this was indeed the case.

Next call: Sony!

Re:Boycott

[SpectreBlofeld]

A time-honored tradition: boycott the advertisers, and write letters to both the advertisers and the game company telling them you're doing so.

Re:Boycott

[idlemachine]

Ah, but the problem with this instance is that consumers aren't being warned that installing this new DLC will add, uh, ads to their game. I guess people know now and most are unwilling to upgrade.

I haven't had a chance to confirm this personally but there are claims that this is happening in the background, that there's no manual update which can be refused by the user.

Anyone know for sure if this is the case?

Re:Boycott

[Arker]

Dont let them get by with that crap, man.

If they claim you bought a service the proper response is 'no, I bought a product, that's what I negotiated and paid for, that's what I havent received, and that's why you WILL issue a chargeback on this.' Stick to that, keep repeating it, and dont stop until the charge has been reversed!

Re:Boycott

[Audguy]

American Express Australia

???

shouldn't that be Australian Express ?

Re:Boycott

[phorm]

hey'll employ some asshat sales analyst who will come to the conclusion that sales are dropping because the products aren't marketed in the right way, or that it is because of the recession or some other stupid excuse

One word for where the blame will likely end up: "illegal copying"

Re:Boycott

[AmiMoJo]

This is certainly not the case in the UK. For example, when Virgin Media lost Sky 1 and a few other channels, my friends who had signed up to a 12 month contract only a couple of weeks before cancelled their service, got the installation fee refunded by the card issuer and cancelled their direct debit.

Re:Boycott

[stephanruby]

I've just spoken to American Express Australia and have been told that I have no grounds to dispute this. Apparently, digitally distributed content is considered a service and not a product, so the same protections don't apply.

If you have no grounds to dispute this, then you have no grounds to keep on paying for the continued American Express service. Never accept legal counsel from a customer representative, it's not like he's on your side anyway. Repeat your request. Escalate the issue. Put it in writing. Repeat that cycle over and over again. Use any and every tool at your disposal.

Making it expensive enough for American Express to do business with that company, that should be your objective.

Re:Boycott

[Arker]

The EULAs are written to say that, yes. There are some precedents to say they can get away with it - and others to say they cannot, however. Hence 'they' are indeed still 'trying' although you are right to point out that it's pretty late in the game now.

Re:Boycott

[NickFortune]

Its a tad hard to boycott Sony Entertainment if you own a PS3.

True. On the other hand, I've not knowingly bought a Sony product since the CD rootkit fiasco, PS3 included. I figured that if they were willing to boobytrap audio CDs, god knows what they'd do if they had an entire console under their control.

I have occasionally wavered in my resolve, I'll admit. I've bought three laptops since then, and Vaio's always look very cool to me. But then something like this happens and I find myself very glad I stuck to my decision.

Re:Boycott

[BlindRobin]

Nah just quit playing the game... Go find another w/o the adverts.

Re:Boycott

[TheRaven64]

Of course, complaining doesn't work by itself either. If you complain but keep buying their products, then that just sends the message that you care a little but not enough to be worth bothering about. If you stop buying their products and let them know why, then they can make an informed decision about future actions.

Re:Boycott

[TheRaven64]

I'm not the original poster, but that's pretty much the reason I stopped watching broadcast TV. I get BBC content without ads through iPlayer, and everything else I rent on DVD. It costs about the same as a cable subscription, but I get to watch an entire series on my own time, rather than spread out over a year, and I don't see adverts. My rental company has now started including a streaming service with my package, so I can watch a load of things at a slightly lower quality[1] but without having to wait at all for them to start. I can't imagine going back to an ad-supported model, and I definitely wouldn't pay for ads.

[1] I watch on a projector connected to an old laptop. In some high-motion scenes it's obvious that the frame rate drops, but for the most part the pixelation is only noticeable if I'm looking for it, and if I'm looking for pixels rather than following the story, the show probably isn't worth watching.

Re:Boycott

[Waccoon]

Did you tell them, too?

If people don't buy, but don't say why, the company will just whine about piracy and continue funding rootkit development. Bad PR or not, I don't see DRM losing popularity any time soon.

Re:Boycott

[TheRaven64]

Was this done by the studio or the publisher? If it was done by the publisher, then a good strategy is to write to the studios that release games with them and say 'I'd love to buy your game. I played it in a store and thought it was fun, but I am currently boycotting your publisher over this incident. Please notify me when it becomes possible to buy the game through a different channel.' If enough people do this, then the studio will quickly realise that they can make more money with a less obnoxious publisher.

If it's done by the studio, then the same technique can work; tell the other studios that you're boycotting the publisher because of the actions of one studio and they will put pressure on the publisher to drop that studio.

Re:Boycott

[mad_minstrel]

Where, pray tell, does a retailer come in with a game only available as a digital download?

Re:Boycott

[Durzel]

That's not quite the same though.

In the case of Virgin Media losing Sky channels that represented a tangible "loss in service quality" that subscribers had originally paid for. The closest corollary to this would be if advertisers somehow changed the layout or general playability of levels by adding advertisements.

Re:Boycott

[Drakkenmensch]

Same, I got my money back for my Bender's Big Score after I figured out that the DVD telling me that "my regional settings are incorrect" was a side effect of the copy protection refusing my laptop to play it normally. I have not bought a single DVD ever since. Bittorrent has all my business now.

Re:Boycott

[Kell Bengal]

Yes, I did. I sent them a letter stating why I was displeased and that my displeasure had resulted in the loss of a loyal customer.

Re:Boycott

[MikeBabcock]

If you chargeback Sony for an online purchase they will probably ban your PSN account, they've said it before repeatedly. The terms of service are very very clear for the PSN store -- all purchases are final, no refunds.

I don't like that policy myself, but I signed up for it and it makes me think before I purchase things.

Re:Boycott

[Attila Dimedici]

Read the summary? How do you boycott something when the advertisements show up several months after you've bought it?

Start boycotting the advertisers. Make sure they know why you are boycotting them.

Re:Boycott

[illumin8]

I've just spoken to American Express Australia and have been told that I have no grounds to dispute this. Apparently, digitally distributed content is considered a service and not a product, so the same protections don't apply.

Moreover, I was told that unless I had - in writing - something that stated that no advertising would be introduced, I can't raise a complaint. Incredulous, I asked the support person if that mean that unless I had written evidence they wouldn't include hard core pornography in my game, I'd have no grounds for complaining about them introducing it. She replied that with services, this was indeed the case.

Unfortunately, this is probably correct. I successfully disputed a lifetime subscription to the game Hellgate: London, by phoning my bank, sending them a printout of the web page advertising the features of the lifetime subscription service and indicating which features were never delivered. If a company advertises a service as containing features and doesn't deliver those features, you can get your money back through a chargeback.

In this case, unless one of the features advertised was "advertisement free content", you probably don't have a case to dispute the charge.

You might try another tactic though: First call Sony and ask for a refund, then when they refuse, dispute the charge based on the fact that the reseller refused to refund your money. Most credit card companies have a clause in their merchant agreement that says the customer has a right to a refund within 90 days, no questions asked. Although they routinely try to violate this for media purchases, if you make a big enough stink about it, they have to give your money back.

Re:Boycott

[AmiMoJo]

It's a more basic requirement of contract law and the law surrounding the sale of goods. Much as companies would like you to think that you buy a "license" to play a game rather than an actual game, the law does not see it that way. You bought something, and the manufacturer decided to change it after you bought it. You had no say in this change and no opportunity to re-negotiate the terms of any "supply of service" contract you may be part of, so they have no leg to stand on.

Contrary to popular belief, you can't write a contract that says "You agree to us changing the contract any time we like, and if you object too bad because you are locked in for 12 months". Well, you can write it, but even if the other person signs it, it won't stand up in court because the law says you can't sign away fundamental legal rights in a contract. If you could, every contract would be like that and you would have no choice but to accept it. The law protects you.

Blocking via the source?

[Anonymous Cowar]

I would be interested if there would be a way to block these ads by looking at traffic and blocking the source at the router. I haven't seen anyone attempt that with the xbox360, but everyone assumed that was par for the course. It would be really interesting to analyze this, and the youtube video should really spark outrage at the ads. I mean the ads are actually degrading performance, they're removing value from the game, and they're very very intrusive. Not everyone has hours and hours and hours to play, and if i can only play for an hour and an add saps 10 seconds every few minutes from my play time, I'd be royally miffed.

Alas, not everyone feels the outrage at having advertising shoved down their throats. I know that newspaper and tv REQUIRE ads to continue to be made, but you can get 77 issues of the WSJ for 70 bucks. That's a little more than a ps3 or xbox game, but the game isn't something completely new every day.

Bottom line, if you use ads, you should either seriously discount your product (newspaper) or provide it for free (broadcast TV), but charging users full price for a game or a DL game and then reaping the benefits of the ads that reduce play time from a session and degrade performance (longer load time = performance degredation) is not right.

Real bottom line: If you want more money from your game, make a better game, its on the console so you can't bitch about piracy, so do better or lose my business. If you previously got my business and then wish to make money off of providing ads to me in a game that there were previously no ads, I will be asking for a refund and encouraging all of my friends to do the same. If you didn't tell me that there would be ads or allow me to decline the ads, expect a general backlash. (I hope)

Re:Blocking via the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will likely be moodded below zero but yes, it is possible to block from your router. I use the same method to block other crap (especially from the PS3).

If you are using apache, mod_rewrite and ProxyBlock are your friend. To use the PS3 as an example, I have rules like:

  ProxyPass /fus1.ps3.update.slashdot.org/update/ps3/list/us/ps3-updatelist.txt http://i/geek.ps3.update.playstation.n/update/ps3/list/us/ps3-updatelist.txt
  ProxyPassReverse /fus()1.ps3.update.playstation.net/update/ps3/list/us/ps3-updatelist.txt http://i/fus()1ps3.update.playstation.n/update/ps3/list/us/ps3-updatelist.txt

You then configure your PS3 (or xbox... wii ... iPhone.. etc), to use your firewall as a proxy.

Or you can do it transparently...

iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -i dmz -s 10.10.1.1 -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT

  and add:

RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/proxy/%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_FILENAME} -f
                RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://i/proxy/%25{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [P,L,NOESCAPE]

That is of course just a weeee peek at what you can do and I've left out quite a bit wrt counter measures some sites are trying. Here is a hint though, adblock and no script don't block nearly as much as people think they do. And no, SSL will not help.

Although it _is_ possible to outright block with DNS tricks, I've found that to be more of a pain. Some things fail completely while others just aren't logistically worth it. In the case of the PS3 for example if it isn't able to grab that updates file, it will refuse to do just about anything. And who really wants to keep updating their list of sites hostting spy / malware?

So why spoof it? For the PS3 I got tired of downloading updates every time I wanted to use the damn thing. It seemed like every DVD, Bluray and video game required a new update that was usually at the WORST time.

On platforms where apache is not available and I have no control over any kind of firewall (iPhone for example), adding a few hosts entries works fine for now though.

I suspect that like most people, I'm not against Ads. I don't cut ads out from news pagers or magazines for example. What I'm against is the data mining, webbeacons, and other invasive crap that seems to go along with them now. Unless you are a kindle owner, you don't (yet) read an ad in the paper and wonder if something in your house just notified the publisher that you've read it, how long you were reading for, what pages you were viewing, post that to facebook/twitter/adthis/asdfasdf, etc. Those are invasive online gimmicks.

Re:Blocking via the source?

[Anonymous Cowar]

it isn't cheap enough already to be permitted some ad revene.

Why? Because it isn't worth $60, or they would have gone for 60, no game designer gives stuff away free on the console nowadays. An average psn download game is 10 bucks, at twice the average cost, it counts as a premium title, so if anything, they should cut the cost down to 10 and say "This is a premium title that we are providing ads with so that you may buy it for the average cost." What? The ads aren't worth $10 per person? Then why are they shooting themselves in the foot like this?

Re:Blocking via the source?

[MikeBabcock]

As many economists will say, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That said, Wipeout HD is a great bang for the buck and could have easily sold in stores for twice its PSN price, in my opinion.

Besides, most people have made it clear over the last 30+ years of ubiquitous television viewing that they'd rather suffer advertisements than pocket money, so I dare say raising the price would be more of a shot to the foot than including some advertising.

Lost sale

[Endymion]

Well, there goes one more sale.

I was about to buy that - the demo looks so good on my new HD monitor. But then they pull this crap...

Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[ihaveamo]

... and for a downloadable PSN game, Wipeout HD is surpurb. 1080p at 60fps on a widescreen tv. Closest thing to a rollercoaster - race. It really feels like a more expensive title.. So..... Would you rather see ads, or pay more upfront?. The game moves so fast, ads a fine by me if the cost stays down! .. I wouldn't like 'em in a RTS or FPS methinks.

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[Nikkos]

Bullshit. I bought the game for $20 without ads. What the hell gives them the right to change the game content of something I've already bought and paid for (a year ago!) Next they'll be changing the music or lyrics of song I bought.

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[Culture20]

Next they'll be changing the music or lyrics of song I bought.

Licensed. BTW, rent's past-due Mr. Nikkos! If you don't lease a new white album by this time tomorrow, I'll start the repossession papers!

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[Taelatus]

Nah. They'll charge whatever we're willing to pay. Sure they can claim development costs and overhead but in the end, business is business. Studies have shown (do a google search) that the younger generation plays games and surfs the web more than they watch TV. It's only natural for advertisers to want their ad seen by as many eyeballs as possible. I for one can't wait until the zombie army I'm fighting gets new uniforms...in the form of Snuggies.

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[tepples]

I bought the game for $20 without ads.

Would you have spent $60, the price of a typical retail title?

What the hell gives them the right to change the game content of something I've already bought and paid for (a year ago!)

The same thing that gives Nintendo the right to change the firmware of a Wii game console to block the use of software developed by students and hobbyists.

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[Waccoon]

Since when do ads drop the cost of a product?

I bought "Driver" about a decade ago, and the packaging was plastered with ads for car products. The game didn't cost less than any other game.

Wipeout HD is decent, but for $20, does it really need ad sponsorship? Did the base price drop after the ads were implemented?

What about Blu-ray? You bought a player and a $30 movie, and you're rewarded with ads for Blu-ray. WTF? I bought the player already, didn't I? Is the ad supposed to convince me to buy a second player?

Ads are for padding profits. If the game isn't free, then the ads don't do anything for me. Also, personally, I'd rather pay for a game without ads than get a free game with ads. That way, I'm paying for what I want, and not simply using what the ad companies think I want.

Re:Wipeout HD = cheap to buy...

[kannibal_klown]

I considered it. I played the older Wipeout on my PSP a couple of years ago but found that while it was initially enjoyable I quickly lost interest. While I have no problem playing some racing games over and over and over such as the Mario Karts or NFS: Most Wanted, some loose their lust after I've beaten the single player a couple of times.

Making money on my dime?

[fremean]

Here in the internet backwater country we call Australia we get a limited amount of bandwidth usage quota.

Every time the PS3/game downloads advertisements it uses my limited quota...

If I run out of quota I either have to buy more, or suffer 64kbit shaping...

And I consider myself lucky, some ISP's charge 18 cents per meg when you go over your quota without the ability to buy more.

I don't mind ads in web pages, or even sensible advertising in online gaming because they constantly require money to upkeep - but a game I've PAID FOR download and am playing OFFLINE doesn't cost the provider a damn cent!

Re:Making money on my dime?

[megrims]

And I consider myself lucky, some ISP's charge 18 cents per meg when you go over your quota without the ability to buy more.

Why lucky? That's presumably part of the reason why you didn't purchase their service.

Re:Making money on my dime?

[fremean]

I suppose, lucky because I know well enough to shop around for ISP's a lot of people literally jump on the incumbent telco/provider, or the first provider that knocks on their door - which would lead me to consider them rather unlucky.

Then there are those who stubbornly refuse to try anything else because they've always known and used the incumbent - I considerer those people rather stupid

Re:Making money on my dime?

[tepples]

Why lucky? That's presumably part of the reason why you didn't purchase their service.

In some areas, all ISPs charge exorbitant amounts per megabyte. For example, this is the case for satellite and 3G data service in the United States. What would you recommend for these people? Do without Internet access at all?

Re:Making money on my dime?

[caitsith01]

Here in the internet backwater country we call Australia we get a limited amount of bandwidth usage quota.

Every time the PS3/game downloads advertisements it uses my limited quota...

If I run out of quota I either have to buy more, or suffer 64kbit shaping...

If Sony can arbitrarily start putting ads in this game and making money from you, why not take a similar liberty? Start sending them bills for the data downloads associated with their crappy ads. After all, if the original game didn't contain this stuff at all then nothing in your EULA for the game could amount to you agreeing to this.

In fact, maybe someone should be reading the original EULA carefully to see whether Sony is breaching it.

Ask for your money back ....

[GabriellaKat]

Contact SONY and ask for your money back. And if that fails, well, guess you could try to go SUE happy and start a class action lawsuit? After all, you bought the game without ads and no clue they were going to do this.

Re:Ask for your money back ....

[shutdown -p now]

you could try to go SUE happy and start a class action lawsuit? After all, you bought the game without ads and no clue they were going to do this.

I would bet that buried somewhere in the murky depths of Sony's EULA, there's a clause that lets them screw you this particular way - somewhere between the one where you promise your newborn as a sacrifice, and the one where you pledge to donate all your organs to the Sony executive board in case of death.

Redirect the DNS

[binaryspiral]

I neither own this game or the console its on - but I'm assuming the game downloads its ad content from a single source.

Block it on your DNS or redirect it to photos (or videos) you'd like to see during the loading of a level.

Re:Redirect the DNS

[fremean]

It would be sweet if anyone who was getting the ads could upload a tcpdump log somewhere :)

Re:Redirect the DNS

[Kenja]

Clearly you didn't look into the situation. The adds are showing up even when off line. They are not being loaded over the net but are built into the patch.

Interesting turn of events

[PhunkySchtuff]

This is a rather interesting turn of events.

wipEout was one of the first major games to feature in-game advertising of real-world products. The ads were very well targeted at the game's demographic, specifically Red Bull ads claiming that it improves reaction time.

These ads didn't adversely impact on the gameplay, in fact I'd say they enhanced it, as they added an element of realism to the game. Products that were aimed at the people playing the game, advertised on trackside billboards, just like they would be in real life.

Also, the idea of paying for ads isn't anything new. How many ads do you see on Pay TV? Ads at the beginning of movies?

Where this latest scheme seems to fall down is that ads unrelated to the target market are being inserted before you play a game, and they are increasing the load time of the levels in order to show the ad for a longer period of time. This is unacceptable.

I'm all for ads in games, especially if it keeps the price down (WipeoutHD isn't exactly and expensive game to begin with) but if it adversely impacts on the gameplay - if it takes longer to load a level, or I get popups that obscure important gameplay, I'm completely against it.

In summary, have ads on billboards or on the sides of vehicles, have them on loading screens, but don't download streaming media to use up my precious bandwidth, or don't increase the time the loading screens are displayed just to fit an ad in there. Also, if the game is subsidised by advertising, reduce the sticker price that I have to pay.

Re:Interesting turn of events

[Anonymous Coward]

wipEout was one of the first major games to feature in-game advertising of real-world products

No, Tapper and Pole Position were.

Only a few ways ...

[ScrewMaster]

or is there anything that can be done to hinder companies from adding advertisements retroactively, without the customer's prior knowledge?

1. Pass another law.

2. Let the market decide.

3. Boil the bastards in oil.

Re:Only a few ways ...

[Nyall]

Is a class action lawsuit #2 or #3 ?

Re:Only a few ways ...

[jd2112]

Pass a law to let the market decide to boil the bastards in oil.

Re:Only a few ways ...

[ScrewMaster]

Is a class action lawsuit #2 or #3 ?

Probably #2, I'd say.

Re:Only a few ways ...

[ScrewMaster]

Pass a law to let the market decide to boil the bastards in oil.

Okay! Now we're talkin'!

GP has not bought or played this.

[StreetStealth]

If the game were free, sure, ads would be completely permissible. But your standard $9.99 game on the PSN should be supported by the purchase price, and as you point out, Wipeout HD sells for double the usual amount, making it a premium PSN title. There is absolutely no excuse to "re-monetize" something like this, especially in such an intrusive way as increasing the load time for levels by an appreciable amount of time.

I think this may be one of those few cases where a credit card issuer chargeback is in order. They sold you something, then messed it up. Enough people do this, and you can be sure Sony will write a proscription of sleeper-ads into their new studio license agreement.

Re:GP has not bought or played this.

[T Murphy]

I don't anticipate it would work but if there are few advertisers so far maybe complain to those companies instead? Pitting companies against each other is often a good way to get someone to back down in a beneficial way. The game company can't monetize on the advertisements if word spreads that it just gets you negative PR. If anyone has heard of such a strategy working it'd be interesting to hear but I'm not too hopeful. I don't have a PS3 but I'll be affected if this idea spreads.

And it doubles the loading time

[Sarusa]

According to ShackNews, this also increases the between race load times from 12 seconds to 20 seconds.

Now that's 'meeting advertiser demand,' thanks Sony.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59821

Re:And it doubles the loading time

[effigiate]

The load time seems dependent upon the length of the ad. The progress bar matches up to around 75% and then the ad infused run slows down only to complete just as the ad finishes.

Re:And it doubles the loading time

[blackraven14250]

Stupid Sony. Beyond the other problems with this, why couldn't they put the ad in front so it would play while the actual level was loading?

Re:Sony Rootkit again

[Goldberg's Pants]

Yes, because putting ads in a game is exactly the same as compromising a system at the root level and leaving it exposed to god knows what.

Creativity

[corychristison]

So, what's next? Can we look forward to fighting the Kool-Aid Man and zombified Mars bars in Uncharted

If they were to start advertising like that, I think it would be welcome in a sense. I don't like the idea of a fullscreen ad taking up my screen when the game is loading (although it's not as though I have anything better to look at while loading).

If companies got really creative and were to add in special characters that pop in from time to time it could be more entertaining and feel less like they were cramming advertising down my retinas.

Picture a giant Sour-Patch man skateboarding as a competitor in a Tony Hawk Game. Or a Coca-Cola bottle skiing down the hill in Winter Sports 2.

Entertainment and advertising all combined into one may be fun and enjoyable. And may upset less people here at Slashdot.

Re:Creativity

[Dudibob]

Or the King from Burger King in Fight Night Round 3? That worked pretty well and was a few giggles

Re:Creativity

[oneirophrenos]

Picture a giant Sour-Patch man skateboarding as a competitor in a Tony Hawk Game. Or a Coca-Cola bottle skiing down the hill in Winter Sports 2.

To me, that would nonetheless totally ruin the game experience. If I feel I'm being expoited by the ad department, I find it hard to concentrate on having fun.

Re:Creativity

[Waccoon]

Advertisers don't understand subtlety. Ever see a movie that puts Coca-Cola bottles front-and-center?

It's not about ads being there. It's about the ads becoming intrusive. By their very nature, ads need attention, and making ads unassuming background props isn't going to make any sponsor happy.

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[causality]

I think you might just have a case here for the ultimate retroactive boycott: the credit card issuer chargeback.

They sold you a game. Then they added a double-dip, "secondary monetization" to what you already paid for. I'd call up MasterCard and see if they've got your back on this.

Honestly, the studio or publisher that did this needs to get hit hard. Ads are for freeloaders, not for paying customers.

From what I understand, chargebacks are a pain in the ass for retailers. They're also one of the few scenarios where the deck is stacked in the favor of you the customer. That's because the merchant really wants to be able to take $MAJOR_CARD but you as the customer can choose among several major credit cards. A small percentage of affected people doing this really would get some attention, methinks.

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[gmezero]

Yeah, but I believe you have a limited time to request a chargeback don't you?

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[causality]

Yeah, but I believe you have a limited time to request a chargeback don't you?

Two questions:

Does the delayed bait-and-switch nature of this incident mitigate any time limits for a chargeback? I'd imagine this is a question for a lawyer.

Do a multitude of good-faith chargebacks need to be successful in order to cause the expenditure of a lot of time, effort, and expense that would lead to a lot of pressure applied in the direction of avoiding a reoccurrence?

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I believe you have a limited time to request a chargeback don't you?

Read your agreement with your card issuer...

Depending on how long ago the transaction was, your bank/issuer may want additional information supporting your request.

In my case, I paid for a part on back-order and was told it might take up to 4 weeks to get the part in. After 4 weeks of nothing, I checked up and they said there had been some delays in the shipment and it wouldn't be much longer until I had it. A few weeks later they went bankrupt and closed (it later turned out they had been taking new orders to pay for older orders and other dodgy business practices. the company had a fairly good reputation leading up to my order).

I ended up successfully placing a chargeback on my card about 10 weeks after the payment, and after answering the bank's questions and providing them with my supporting documentation had the charge reversed about 3 months after the initial payment.

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[quadrox]

In denmark online shops are not allowed to charge your card until they have shipped your order. It's a very nice law to have.

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[SirWhoopass]

And, of course, businesses in Denmark that are going bankrupt and have dishonest owners will always obey the law.

Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[quadrox]

well, if you don't get a shipping mail before the transaction shows up on your account you'd damn well hurry up and get a chargeback.

And you always get a track and trace number, so it's quite easy to see whether the stuff really has been shipped.

Greed knows no limits

[erroneus]

To be simple, greed knows no limits except those limits imposed by morality and by law. And in the case of modern business, there is no such thing as "morality" and so law is the only limit recognized by business. To be clear, unless laws are present to prevent it, 12 year olds will make your clothes and shoes in factories as can be demonstrated even today. Without laws, there would be billboards covering ever scene and location imaginable. I have no doubt that business would have no problem playing ads in your dreams if it were technically possible, and of course, legal.

There is nothing more important to modern business than money. Nothing. Not quality. Not human life. Not nature or the environment. All of that has been lost. It would be nice if that sort of morality could return, but I just can't imagine how. The story of how it was all lost would be an interesting story to hear. I just know we had some morality at some point and it was lost... I feel the loss.

Re:Greed knows no limits

[Cat Panic]

There is nothing more important to modern business than money. Nothing. Not quality. Not human life. Not nature or the environment. All of that has been lost. It would be nice if that sort of morality could return, but I just can't imagine how. The story of how it was all lost would be an interesting story to hear. I just know we had some morality at some point and it was lost... I feel the loss.

Have you read 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn? It's a (fictional) book that attempts to explain how we got to be in the situation you describe.

If you are at all interested in the profit motive it's well worth a read.

Re:Greed knows no limits

[migla]

Maybe you'd like to watch or read "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan. http://www.thecorporation.com/ ...or watch the whole thing here

I'm not sure I agree with the way they "show" that a corporation is like a psychopath. That part is anthropomorphizing appeal to emotions, but I think it still has lot's of background and insight.

Re:Greed knows no limits

[Attila Dimedici]

. It would be nice if that sort of morality could return, but I just can't imagine how. The story of how it was all lost would be an interesting story to hear. I just know we had some morality at some point and it was lost... I feel the loss.

Quite simply most people will only behave morally if they believe that there is some higher power that will hold them to account. Western Civilization has been busily training its young that there is no such higher power for several generations and is now surprised that those same young when they reach adulthood have, for the most part, no morality.

Easy, don't buy, don't play, unplug

[relaxinparadise]

"Can we look forward to fighting the Kool-Aid Man and zombified Mars bars in Uncharted, or is there anything that can be done to hinder companies from adding advertisements retroactively, without the customer's prior knowledge?" Most importantly, stop buying products from people that have a track record of running over consumer rights. Providing them resources from your purchases will do nothing to stop behavior you disapprove of. Don't play the game if the ads bother you. To stop any more ad's coming in, I would think it would be easy enough to unplug the PS3 from the network. Or if you can't do any of the above, buy the game, play it, get the ads, and whine like a used bitch.

hosts.txt

[Nimey]

Any players notice traffic to ad servers? Post the hostnames and people can just map them to 127.0.0.1.

Re:hosts.txt

[DigiShaman]

This isn't PC gaming. Host.txt files don't apply to consoles and SOHO routers.

Re:hosts.txt

[phorm]

It's slashdot though, so for many it might apply to IPtables rules on a NAT box, or rues on a modified router (better than nothing).Maybe somebody could come up with a no-ads patch that blackholes the adservers.

Re:hosts.txt

[AbRASiON]

Yeah but it's not like we can edit the hosts file on the PS3 now is it?
I know I know this is slashdot, I should have some kind of linux based router but I don't, I have a standard one built in to my Billion ADSL modem, it's pretty powerful too :/ it does what I need.

This move by Sony is pretty stupid to be honest, I've paid for this game, I don't like or support ad driven games which aren't free, not happy.

Re:hosts.txt

[gmezero]

Actually that's not entirely accurate. Many SOHO routers allow for QoS or IP blocking for handling things like blocking your kids from MySpace. I know every Linksys router I recall ever owning has the ability to do this because I've had to block my kids access to one site or another over the years when we were having problems with grades, etc...

Re:hosts.txt

[tepples]

Post the hostnames and people can just map them to 127.0.0.1.

And console makers will switch to a signed/encrypted variant of DNS to find the servers for game downloads, advertisement downloads, and matchmaking.

Re:hosts.txt

[greed]

Hmmmmmm....

You just need to run your own DNS and DHCP servers on something you can modify, like a Linux appliance. Many popular little blue SOHO routers qualify....

option domain-name-servers mydns.localdomain;

Then have a zone for each banned domain in your DNS that consists solely of an SOA and NS record, identifying your DNS server.

hosts.txt are for... well... Windows users, actually, 'cause it's just hosts on POSIX-ish systems. And all of those run BIND and ISC DHCPD fine.

Re:Sony Rootkit again

[ekhben]

That would depend on your perspective. If you consider the motivation behind both actions, they're pretty similar: a thorough disdain for the customer and for the consequences of the action.

And hey, let's face it, there were no real consequences to the root kit fiasco ($7.50 per claimant in a class action is peanuts for a crime which carries a maximum penalty of $100,000 per violation).

Money...

[joocemann]

With money for the goal, how else did you expect to be treated? You will endure it just as the millions who endure television commercials, spam, and the rest of the world of business we've come to live in immersion with.

Imagine your world without money. The utopia you might imagine surely can't have anything to do with such a destructive force.

Re:Sony Rootkit again

[causality]

Yes, because putting ads in a game is exactly the same as compromising a system at the root level and leaving it exposed to god knows what.

I acknowledge that what you said there is accurate though I question its purpose. I just think the AC's point that "you as a potential customer should know that a Sony product has shown itself to be untrustworthy in these two different ways" is significantly more important than your point that "these two different ways were more different than the GP may have indicated."

Those different ways actually have quite a bit in common. Remember that the rootkit was a DRM device. So, these are two different expressions of the same mentality because each gives some benefit to a company at the expense of the already-paying customer. In light of that, are not the precise methods academic? Either tells me all that I need to know for my monetary decision-making.

Kneejerk reaction

[kyjl]

./'s reaction has 'kneejerk' all over it. Fox News kneejerk.

Games have had in-game advertisements for YEARS and nothing bad has ever come from it. Some as blatant as in WipEout HD. Some games even paid the companies to advertise in the games - Guitar Hero and Rock Band jog your memory a bit?

Hell, if anything WipEout is a fantastic example. Ever since the first one came out on the PSX it was inundated with in-game advertisements for stuff like Red Bull and other Psygnosis games. This was before the internet was put on console games, now it's no different (only now the advertisements can change - OH NO THE WORLD'S GONNA END WE GOTTA PROTEST SONY BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT).

Calm the fuck down everyone.

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

hey jackass, they added in ads to a game that previously had no ads, MONTHS after users bought the no-ads game. not only that, it nearly doubles the load time of the game since it forces you to look at the ad.

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[omnichad]

I went to dotslash.org, and I didn't see any reactions at all. Just a few links and ads.

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[kannibal_klown]

Games have had in-game advertisements for YEARS and nothing bad has ever come from it. Some as blatant as in WipEout HD. Some games even paid the companies to advertise in the games - Guitar Hero and Rock Band jog your memory a bit?

It's not so much that there is advertising in the game. It's that a game that's been out for a year and is premium-priced on the PlayStationNetwork Store "all of a sudden" had commercials added via a nearly automatic update. To add insult to injury, said commercials are adding to the load time between tracks.

So if the game came with ads in the first place, then that would be one thing. I'd argue then said game should either the regular PSN price or slightly lower, but that's another story.

But if you buy a game and all of a sudden they patch it so it has ads/commercials then that's aggravating.

All the more reason

[spyder-implee]

For me to not feel guilty pirating games.

Re:All the more reason

[pandrijeczko]

Well, sonny, guess what? You're as BAD as they are - Sony, the RIAA, DRM...

It's because of schmucks like you that evil corporations create justifications to foist their crappy protection and DRM on the rest of us honest consumers.

If you don't like the price of something then DON'T BUY IT and have the courage to then LEAVE IT BE rather than fooling yourself into believing you're FIGHTING THE SYSTEM sat their in your bedroom with your P2P client downloading pirated games.

Sick of ads?

[SetupWeasel]

Hop aboard the Wii bandwagon. They may have friend codes, but they don't throw ads on your dashboards and in your games. Wii online is a very clean service. You will never be swamped with ads about "Double Pits to Chesty" on the Wii menu.

Re:doublefusion

[assassinator42]

Why do you work for such a firm? No better option? I think I'd feel rather guilty in such a position.
And I don't recall Live originally having ads. In fact, I don't remember any ads at all on the Xbox 1.
The most "brazen" example of in-game advertising I've seen is 1 vs. 100, but that's understandable as the game is "free" (besides the Live subscription). Although it remains to be seen if they will charge for the full version. Seeing as how they seem to be making the game more buggy as they release more builds, I have a feeling it may be in beta for a while yet. I'm also a bit confused and quite a bit annoyed by their advertising plan: run the same ads over and over again each half hour, and only add more ads from the same companies.;

Re:READ THE GOD DAMNED SUMMARY

[morghanphoenix]

This is slashdot. How many people actually RTFA?

Yeah, it sucks.

[chaboud]

It's jarring, breaks the style of the game (old-school dollar bills for State Farm?), and sucks when you've bought both the game and the Fury update (Mirror's Edge costs less). This is the natural outcome of having a closed system that allows people to reach in and screw with things you've already "bought."

Of course, I also have an iPhone and iPod touch...

I can already see

[sleeponthemic]

That the slashdottian righteous indignation is in full swing. My question to those of you perturbed by this is: Are you offended by the inclusion of ads or the non-disclosure?

There's a difference. Non-disclosure is foolish. Providing free patches, partially funded by advertising revenue to you is not.

Re:I can already see

[unfasten]

Providing free patches, partially funded by advertising revenue to you is not.

It's not free, nor was the original game. Wipeout HD is $19.99 and the expansion is $9.99. So these people are paying $30 for this nice new "feature".

Quote from http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/07/17/wipeout-fury-developer-diary-new-game-modes/

Before I talk about what I've been up to on the WipEout HD Fury expansion pack, I would just like to let you know that the pack will be available from PlayStation Store on Thursday, July 23rd for $9.99.

Re:I can already see

[Kamineko]

So... they could put the patches on some kind of Sony website where there are adverts. Once I'm done downloading the patch, I leave the website, and I never have to see the advertisement again. Sony's own version of the ghastliness that is Fileplanet. How's that sound?

Re:I can already see

[PaganRitual]

If you're going to attempt to be a pretentious smart ass, please take, at the very least, a cursory glance at what you're talking about, lest you sound neither pretentious nor smart. This is not a free patch. It is a paid-for expansion pack.

Re:I can already see

[sleeponthemic]

It isn't pretentious to believe that companies should be allowed to seek other revenue sources IF the content is free. Whether that applies in this case, that is obvious to me now. All too many times on slashdot this comment would apply, though.

Sigh

[Kaenneth]

I never bought a Playstation 3, I kinda wanted too... but being from Sony, I knew they'd screw it up somehow...

Why ads while loading?

[aquaraider]

I don`t care if there`s ads or not, but they should not put it in loading screen, it is a video game but not TV shows. What they should do is put ads on the race track, don`t you see both Need For Speed and Burnout has ads everywhere except while loading?

Re:Why ads while loading?

[117]

Agreed, it wouldn't have surprised (or bothered) me in the slightest if track-side in-game ads had appeared in Wipeout HD, I kinda expected it as they already have advertising hoardings on the tracks, but slowing down the loading process is just out of order.

Re: set vs. pair

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little worried. Most people have "a pair" rather than "a set". How many do you have, exactly? Two? Three? Many? (/me glances over at a set of legos and then looks down.)

Ads not active in EU yet

[117]

I'm in the UK, played Wipeout HD with the 2.0.1 update and the Fury DLC last night, no ads there, although according to the Double Fusion press release from TFA it'll only be a matter of time unfortunately.

Re:READ THE GOD DAMNED SUMMARY

[jimthehorsegod]

This is slashdot. How many people actually RTFA?

It might not bode well to be supporting a post modded flamebait but jesus. Really. THE SUMMARY dammit! Nobody mentioned the article! Not RingTFA seems reasonable, but not reading the summary is pushing it, and not reading posts?

Heh

[msimm]

That post was supposed to be a preview. I'd claim that I'm stoned but I've done it too many times anyway. ~:P

Re:READ THE GOD DAMNED SUMMARY

[Nathrael]

CowboyNeal?

Re:READ THE GOD DAMNED SUMMARY

[morghanphoenix]

Heh, I usually click straight through to the article, didn't even notice that in the summary. Guess I'm kinda backwards for slashdot.

Double? Try one-third

[tepples]

Wipeout HD sells for double the usual amount

"The usual amount" for a PLAYSTATION 3 game is $60 because "the usual" PS3 game is a retail package. So Wipeout HD sells for one-third the usual amount.

There is absolutely no excuse to "re-monetize" something like this

Basic cable TV costs money and has advertisements.

Re:Double? Try one-third

[Nevyn]

"The usual amount" for a PLAYSTATION 3 game is $60 because "the usual" PS3 game is a retail package. So Wipeout HD sells for one-third the usual amount.

If you buy a disc based game for $60 you can resell it for (at least) $20-$30, if you buy a PSN game for $20 you can't.

Could it hurt your credit rating?

[tepples]

Repeat your request. Escalate the issue. Put it in writing. Repeat that cycle over and over again.

And then your credit report will likely brand you a "demon customer", other lenders will raise your rates (as they do in universal default), and your insurance will drop you.

Re:Could it hurt your credit rating?

[tepples]

I am EXTREMELY doubtful a large corp is going to say shit about a customer on a CREDIT report unless it directly relates to non-payment or late-payment of credit extended.

Then perhaps I had some misconceptions when I wrote that post. If a merchant dissatisfies a customer enough that the customer requests a chargeback, would that appear on the customer's credit report?

In defense of reasonable child labor

[tepples]

To be clear, unless laws are present to prevent it, 12 year olds will make your clothes and shoes in factories as can be demonstrated even today.

Say a 12-year-old is making straight A's and B's in school but is bored over summer vacation. What is the 12-year-old supposed to do?

Nothing new in racing

[Psyborgue]

Racing in general has traditionally been addled with corporate sponsorship. Look at F1 or NASCAR. Even the original wipeout had adds for red bull during loading. Personally, I could care less about adds during loading or even billboards in the game itself as long as it doesn't interfere with the gameplay or story.

Please

[Sebilrazen]

So, what's next? Can we look forward to fighting the Kool-Aid Man...

OH YEAH.... I hope so, I'd go after that bastard with a center punch or a slingshot with a pocket full of ball bearings.

UPDATE: victory for the customer!

[StreetStealth]

Kotaku reports that the loading ads have vanished after popular uproar. Presumably the only remaining ones are just the usual trackside ones that actually make sense in a racing game.

Sony justs scrapped/removed the Wipeout ads

[dnaumov]

Bowing to pressure, Sony has now removed the ads from Wipeout.

Suicide

[kheldan]

I guess game companies really want to become bankrupt; I don't see WHY anybody would want to pay for a game and then have to sit through ads.

EULA...

[crusisredux]

You might want to check the EULA you agreed to on installing 2.01.

This time they promised to use lube!

[bornagainpenguin]

This is Sony having it's cake and eating it, too.

"This is Sony." should've been all the warning anyone needed. How many times are people going to let Sony screw them over before they quit buying Sony products?

--bornagainpenguin

Re:This time they promised to use lube!

[khellendros1984]

OK, a little off topic here....but *why* do you feel the need to sign your post with your name (A "signature", let's call it), when your name is already displayed at the top of your post?

Re:This time they promised to use lube!

[Scarletdown]

I guess Sony is like Slurm

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

(1:10-1:35 for example)