Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Contact the ratings board and complain that the content of the game has changed.
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.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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)
Read the summary?
How do you boycott something when the advertisements show up several months after you've bought it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
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.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
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!
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.
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!
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
"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!)
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
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.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
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".
Any players notice traffic to ad servers? Post the hostnames and people can just map them to 127.0.0.1.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
But no matter what, always remember to stay positive, cynicism never got anyone anywhere!
That's a pretty cynical view of cynicism.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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!)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
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!