Wipeout HD Loading Ads Scrapped After Uproar

RobotsDinner writes "After Monday's story about intrusive, loading-screen ads being retroactively added to the PSN racing title Wipeout HD, the popular uproar has indeed succeeded in getting Sony to pull them. You can put your pitchforks down; your voice has been heard! A Sony spokesman said, 'The ad has been removed from Wipeout HD and we are investigating the situation to ensure that any in-game advertising does not affect gameplay.'"

Comments

Me=Fail

[somecreepyoldguy]

Sadly all the uproar did was make me realize that I had missed out on the expansion that came out (I bought it) :( sorry internet.

The pricks won't stop.

[grub]

The ad has been removed from Wipeout HD and we are investigating the situation to ensure that any in-game advertising does not affect gameplay

Read: "We are still committed to forcing ads on you and will find a less annoying way to do so."

.

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[nine-times]

Correction: Read: "We are still committed to forcing ads on you and will wait for you to forget about this incident before trying again. If we keep cramming this stuff down your throats, eventually you'll swallow."

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[hedwards]

Good, so I'm not the only one that noticed that this isn't the first time that Sony had to pullback after being caught acting in such an egregious way. And I doubt it'll be the last. Which is a shame, because there are times when I'd like to buy one of their products, each time this sort of thing happens it reinforces my sense that I shouldn't be doing business with them.

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[Sockatume]

According to Edge "a less annoying way" was part of their terms with the agency from the outset. The ads were supposed to match the game aesthetic for a start. Guess the agency decided to cut corners, put up some random ad from their stock, and Sony weren't actually screening the ads for compliance.

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[Toonol]

I would claim Nintendo is, primarily due to gaming being their only revenue source. They aren't quite as willing to screw up their only source of income in order to keep their media/music/home pc/movei/websearch/whatnot wings of their company happy.

Nintendo is far from angelic, and has done nasty arrogant things in the past... but they're no Microsoft, and certainly no Sony.

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[McGuirk]

Hey, I'm genuinely unaware: What did Nintendo do that is akin to Microsoft or Sony's shenanigans? I don't buy Microsoft or Sony anymore, and I'd like to avoid adding Nintendo to that list.

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[7 digits]

I stopped buying anything related to SONY since their CEO, a few years ago, announced that he would prevent his customers to copy music by intervening at the server level, at the ISP, and even in your own computer (I don't remember the exact quote, but it was long ago, even before the rootkit fiasco).

Anyway, I thought "good for you, but you will never have any money from me to implement your plan".

Re:The pricks won't stop.

[badasscat]

It depends on what type of shenanigans you're talking about. Some would argue that what they've done is worse than anything Sony or Microsoft has done, in that it not only has annoyed gamers, it has altered the entire video gaming industry to the detriment of gamers and their competition.

Nintendo's biggest sin is that they are notoriously lawsuit-happy. They started suing just after the NES was launched and have basically never stopped. Along the way, they helped put Atari out of the video game business (forcing them to recall "unauthorized" games made for their system), they created the idea of an "exclusivity" deal, and they got mod chips and bootloaders outlawed through their lawsuits and government lobbying.

I used to work as a game reviewer and I can tell you they have always been the most paranoid of all the gaming companies. And not the kind of funny stoner kind of paranoid, I'm talking CIA/NSA/TSA/DHS kind of paranoid. And with a similar level of power, at least within their industry. They are responsible for most of the lock-ins and legal restrictions that are now standard within the industry. If not for Nintendo, anybody could write and release a game for any video game system, and anybody could run whatever code they wanted on their home game consoles, be it "officially" released or not. Nintendo saw to it that you cannot.

Jet Moto

[rxan]

Anyone remember Jet Moto for the PSX? They had Mountain Dew and Butterfinger ads plastered on billboards through all of the races. Even the teams of racers were sponsored by different products. But hey, back then I thought it was pretty cool.

Re:Jet Moto

[Joehonkie]

Wipeout XL was plastered in Red Bull ads. Nobody even knew what Red Bull was!

Re:Jet Moto

[hedwards]

The difference is that the ads were in the game from the beginning and one typically expects for racing games to be plastered with ads. The difference is that rather than creating fake ads like many other games they used real games. I don't believe there was any impact on the speed of the game and people generally assume when they see the real trademark that money is changing hands.

Not that it really makes it OK, if the money isn't going to lower the cost for the consumer.

Re:Jet Moto

[The Moof]

Except this particular ad was during a loading screen. And after the loading was finished, you were still stuck watching another 10 seconds of an advertisement video before it would let you play. In game advertising that adds some realism is nice, but this type of advertising is abusive. Especially since you paid for the game, and it's interfering with your ability to play it.

Re:Jet Moto

[MogNuts]

Ur exactly right. That's what everyone doesn't realize. Ads won't lower the cost one cent. Not *one* game will be made cheaper, even if they are making more money via delivering ads.

The answer is simple. No more complaining & then just keep on buying like normal, just do one or all of the following 3 things:

1) NEVER buy games with in-game ads. If they are added retroactively, then:
a) No longer purchase games from the developer/publisher (whoever is at fault)
b) Buy a *used* copy of the game you want--never let the publisher/developer get another new sale from you.
c) Speaking in Wipeout's case, if it's available only via download, see 1a.

2) Only play games with ads that are completely free

3) If it comes to it, switch to PC gaming. I'm sure that there will be an "adblock" for games if things get too ridiculous.

But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[Benanov]

I think ads will ruin my immersion. Every product placement I've seen has always led to something I didn't like about the game:

Monkey Ball Series - DOLE IS EVERYWHERE in the games, and it gets kind of annoying.
Most racing simulator games - Can't show damage on branded vehicles

Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head.

Re:But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[thisnamestoolong]

Most racing simulator games - Can't show damage on branded vehicles

This one is the WORST. They put countless thousands of man hours into perfecting the driving mechanics, but then can't show any damage on the vehicle. I am not sure how it is in the latest iteration, but this pulled me right out of the game in Gran Turismo, they are trying to get me to buy the fact that I am driving a real car on a real track, yet I can smash into a wall at 200+ mph with no consequences. That goes above and beyond being irritating, it is downright shameful. They would be better off using fictional cars at that point -- if the automakers don't want the free publicity they can go screw.

Re:But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[CelticWhisper]

Worse than that, I don't even understand why. I mean, is it an ego thing? Really? Really truly? What would lead car company executives to be so full of themselves as to believe that their cars never, ever see so much as a scratch? Hello, it's a fucking Toyota, or Chevy, or Subaru, or Nissan. It's not a goddamned Abrams tank, it's going to get scuffed up especially when it's going 150-200MPH. The Abrams tank would get scuffed up going 150-200MPH. I mean, I love my Subie - it's very reliable and has been good to me, but I was careless when transporting a computer once and the corner of the case put a nice scratch in the paint by the rear driver's door. At the end of the day, cars aren't invincible.

How did that idiotic licensing condition ever even originate? And why do all the car companies actually buy into it? I can just see corporate pencilnecks in a boardroom somewhere blathering on about "virtual vandalism" or some equally-insipid bullshit. And it makes me glad I haven't eaten anything in the last hour.

Re:But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[spun]

Not all car manufacturers have this restriction. In fact, only a minority do. Usually it is the brands like Porsche that are know for high performance. They don't want to ruin their image by showing the real consequences of driving like the stuntmen do in their commercials. Therefore, it would be less realistic to have the majority of branded cars show damage while a few didn't, and if the developers just left out the manufacturers who demanded 'no damage,' then they would be leaving out some of the best cars.

Re:But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[Twanfox]

A lot of corporate image is about making sure that the logo is portrayed with just the right shading of colors, just the right dimensions, etc etc. I had worked for a company at one point where we had put the company logo into our signatures. We were told we had to take them out because when the logos were printed or when they were viewed on the screen, they failed to comply with corporate governance over how the logo should be seen.

With a bashed up car, you'll get the Ford/Chevy/Honda/whatever logo all f'd up and then noone would recognize it for the product it is!

Re:But in-game ads will always affect gameplay

[gmezero]

Free publicity nothing. The publisher had to pay licensing to all of those auto manufactures in order to get the cars into the game. This was why they were hamstrung over the damage issue. If it was a case where the auto company was begging for inclusion to the publisher then the publisher would have leverage to approve damage.

What's ridiculous about this is BMW shocked everyone a few years ago when they ran that series of ads where their cars are in chases and get totally trashed and they played it for all it's worth on how much of a beating their cars can take and still kick ass. BMW actually got positive viewer reaction out of those ads for their product proving that this notion that you can't show your car dinged is extra special ridiculous.

Static vs Video

[odin84gk]

If they included static ads, such as an image, it may not have been a problem. However, they did video advertisements that increased the load time by 10 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX4f9zts6JM

Re:Static vs Video

[nine-times]

Another thing that might have made it less of a problem: if the consumers were given an option and saw benefit from watching the ads.

For example, if the publisher said from the outset, "Agree to have these ads placed in your game, and the game is now free to you, entirely ad supported," then that seems fine. Or even if there's a partial-credit, like you can get the ad-supported version of the game for 50% off.

But paying full price for a game only to have ads pop up unexpectedly seems like an intrusion to me. Especially so if I've already bought a game, and it's not until a later update that ads get added in. Once I've bought the game, our transaction is complete. You don't get to modify the arrangement and continue making money by selling my eyeball time to advertisers.

This is how it always goes down

[RedCard]

The first time a company attempts shenanigans like this, there's an uproar. Then they wait a while, for some of the people to get used to the idea, or apathetic, or both, and then attempt it again.

Too much hue and cry the second time results in a third repetition, with a slightly longer cycle. Process repeats until implementation.

Re:Fight Night Round 4

[MathiasRav]

NOBODY MESSES WITH MY PIXELATED BOOBIES!

Now that would release an outroar. Imagine The Sims 4 using product logos instead of pixelating sprites to cover That Which Is Not There^W^W^W^W^Wgenitalia.

Re:Overreaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ads are just an added revenue stream at the cost of the consumer. Saying they keep the price low is nonsense. They are extra, bonus, on top of the retail price revenue some sneaky biz guy thought looked cool on a powerpoint slide. Especially when they get added in an update AFTER release.

When you want me to pay for a game, you better keep ads out of it.

I don't care

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I'm not even going to consider buying Wipeout HD, and I'm giving a second thought when I'm buying anything else form the same developer/publisher.

Same old Sony

[WCMI92]

This company just can't help itself. They are just totally evil from top to bottom.

It just never occurs to them in advance that their customers don't like having it suddenly shoved up the ass without lube, and can only "hear them" after they are already white hot angry.

Since the Star Wars Galaxies NGE debacle, I've refused to buy anything with the Sony brand on it. I see that they are just as ethical as ever.

Re:Same old Sony

[Renraku]

Sony isn't totally evil.

They just have some serious issues with their marketing folks that they need to get under control. I don't know if you've ever worked for a major company, but a lot of them have the same issue. Marketing is really the only wing of the company that brings money in, as the higher-ups see it. Since most of them are from marketing themselves. Whatever they say is gold, and they run the show. They make promises, and the rest of the company is supposed to bend over backwards to make it happen, or make the marketing department look like fools.

In this case, a lower-level in the marketing department probably decided it was a good idea to say, "Look, my ideas can make us some money too!" and went ahead and sent it to the technical team. No money, of course, was given for testing, since this wouldn't affect game play itself, but rather, loading screens. Oh yes, it worked, people noticed the ads. And they noticed them for longer-than-normal, because it was probably the way it was programmed.

Now their marketing department looks like fools, minus one fool that just got transferred to the janitorial staff's bathroom division.

It's a problem with all companies, really. The techs will design a beautiful system with excellent hardware for an affordable price, and the marketing department will fuck it up by telling them to do it even cheaper, and even better, even if they have to buy no-name chips from a Chinese manufacturer. Someone will design a beautiful and fun video game, only to have logos smeared everywhere by the marketing department, that can't be destroyed like everything else in said beautiful game world.

Companies have a long history of this. Pretty much all of them. In America, the marketing department sits firmly above the heads of the rest of the company. I assure you, the technical department probably isn't evil. They're just guilty-by-association-by-force with the marketing department.

Example of a conversion scenario

[tepples]

[Advertising for other games' in-game items] only increases the players' immersion and doesn't make the company any money!

It gets the player asking: "WTF is a KeroKeroCola?" A couple Bings later, "Super Mario RPG" is firmly planted in the player's mind, and the player heads to the Virtual Console section of the Wii Shop Channel to download the game. (Conversion rates may vary, just as in real life.)

Re:Help me ditch the pricks

[geminidomino]

[Console-style games for PC] don't exist. Never will.

Care to explain why not, once HDTV reaches 51 percent of U.S. households and eliminates the last major hurdle to connecting PCs to a home theater?

It's got nothing to do with HDTV. Connecting a PC to a TV is a solved problem. I've had a MythTV box connected to my TV via a $50 video card for 4 years (and I've only had an HDTV for less than two).

It's because the market for "Console-style games on a PC" is small. You're just not a profitable demographic.