Slashdot Mirror
Personalized In-Game Advertising In Upcoming Titles
Scythal writes "In-game advertising provider Massive Inc., acquired by Microsoft in 2006, has signed up or renewed contracts with several publishers, notably EA, Blizzard Entertainment, THQ, and Activision. Eagerly anticipated games like Need for Speed: Shift will feature the technology that continuously collects 'anonymous' information about users, sends them to the Massive database for analysis, and downloads advertisements to be shown in the game. All that happens insidiously, without the users' explicit consent and out of their control, which raises further concerns about privacy, security and quite frankly, customer abuse. Would you feel concerned about software that collects personal information and sends it so that you get more personalized ads in a game you paid for?"
(More, below.)
"The technology has already been implemented, and was present in older titles. For example, Far Cry 2, released in October 2008 by Ubisoft Montreal, had it. You could discover that if you cared to read the manual up to the last pages: 'This game incorporates technology of Massive Incorporated ("Massive") that, when activated, enable the presentation of in-game advertisements and other in-game objects which are uploaded temporarily to your personal computer or game console and changed during online game play. As part of this process, when Massive technology is activated, Massive may have access to your Internet Protocol address. Your Internet Protocol address, and other basic anonymous information, available to Massive are temporarily used by Massive for the general purposes of transmitting and measuring in-game advertising.' However, it seems the technology was not used at the time, for some reason. This time, be assured it will be. How are we supposed to react to something like this? Shouldn't it be called adware? And, gratified by the success of this technology, what would be the next logical step of companies like Massive? Wouldn't they seek new publishers and use it in other software?"
I have two words for you: DNS Blacklist
A little like iTunes Genius feature?
This may lead to a new generation of hackers: people who use their spare time to patch the games to remove those insidious ads. Should we call them adkers?
The question is - what information does it collect, and where does it collect it from? I mean, if it scans my hard drive for files, my in-game experience will look ore like Duke Nukem's dancing girl posters, or (god forbid) work!
If it scans my bookmarks, cookies, etc, then I'll be viewing slashdot in-game.
Either way, its not good for the security of my PC, if a game can collect this information, the scammers and botnets can do the same, all they have to do is persuade me to install something - a game for example.
The only way I would buy this game is if the title is free because of the ad content
You want to know how you the consumer can fix this? You don't buy the games that have this kind of advertisement in it!
I mean I'm all for static advertising in games that are free, or reduced in price. (Quakelive for example)
But if I'm paying $50 bucks as well as sacrificing privacy and having to deal with ads, I'll have none of it.
But the only way you can fix this is by not buying the product. Show them that you will have no part in it. Problem is, many people will still go out and buy it, which is why they will continue to do it. If they know they can still make money, they will continue with this kind of stuff until we say "No more"
So stick by your guns, and just say no. Else nothing will ever change.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
If it means more money for the people who produce the games I like, so they can hire more coders, more artists, more level designers, etc., then great!
I don't object to the idea in principle. I think it's a great idea, actually. Only concerns I have circle around the degree of anonymity and security. But if those are issues that are handled well, then this is a good thing for me as a gamer.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Easy solution, offer two versions of the game. One with out the ads and one with the ads but at a discount, say 50% off. Then let the consumer decide.
Unless the games infected with ads are absolutely free, I will not pay for any product containing advertisements (which are not so unobtrusive I can ignore without second thought).
Used to love going to the movies, even arriving at the movie "start" time when I expected a few interesting trailers... Now that theaters are playing commercials (mostly eye-stabingly bad adverts) before the trailers, I pretty much avoid seeing movies in the theater.
Ironic, running the risk of alienating consumers with a supplemental revenue stream. Too bad the loss in product sales are likely more than be made up with the ad revenues. : (
I'm okay with this!
If they give me the game for free.
If they won't give me the ad-crippled game for free, then there's hundreds of really good games that /don't/ have ads, that I still haven't played yet.
One of the worst problems with this concept would come up if you're an Xbox Live Gold subscriber. You're already paying $50 for multiplayer (let's face it - that's the only real benefit of the service), and on top of that they still sell your personal data and feed you adverts. Data mining is fine as long as the user consents to it and in return is provided with some kind of free service - sites like Facebook are built around this model. But to plunk down money only to have them serve you more in-game commercials? That's some bad double-dipping.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/20/
They tried generic billboards in their games. I think I saw ads in the game for about a month before no one else put an ad there since no one cared. Now all those bill boards do is get in your way when you are running around narrow ledges on the sides of buildings.
or pay the regular price for ad-free games, I think I could stomach it
... is a complete absence of it. This is one more reason to remain a loner when it comes to gaming, and shun online multiplayer in favor of lan party or "skirmish" gaming only.
As the title says, vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game and send a letter, not an email, to the companies involved and let them know why you are not purchasing their game(s).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1.) Data collected is purely my from my interaction with the game only. IE, you don't get to data mine my harddrive, my browser history, etc.
2.) I am not forced to watch ads to play the game. Showing some ads during loading periods is borderline, prolonging the load screen time to force me to watch ads is not acceptable. Need for Speed lends itself very well to in game advertising that does not get in the way of actual game play (billboards, decals, etc.)
3.) Any collection is done only by the game, in the game. No root kits, background processes, etc.
But in reality, they probably want to:
1.) Rootkit your computer to watch any activity you do on your computer at all times.
2.) Place an unhidable screen overlay that bombards you with ads all the time. And this overlay would be needed anytime the game was installed as part of the EULA.
3.) Attach a GPS tracking device to your leg to monitor which stores you shop at, movies you watch, etc. to enhance you experience during the game.
You know, the usual stuff. It will be all in the EULA. No worries...
"without the users' explicit consent and out of their control, which raises further concerns about privacy, security and quite frankly, customer abuse."
No, in the ToS for gold it clearly mentions this (likely its in the ToS for the whole online service as it'd effect silver players too) - and the most obivious point here is - Dont play online if you dont want that.
The fact you can't really put any infomation INTO a game, no "real" infomation at least. A gamertag, an IP, maybe some address info, but thats not going to give you a very well customised advert. The way it'll work most likely is how it already works - you go into the game and attach you "ubisoft"/EA/Microsoft/other publisher account to your gamertag via the game and it gives you "free items" to use in game. In return, they know who you are if you ever use the website.
The fact is, you'll still have adverts while playing the game, the question is just if they are aimed at "you" or not.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
how much freedom and privacy young people are willing to give up.
I won't buy these-- for the first two decades I owned computers they were completely mine. Concepts like these weren't even considered *and* good games were profitable at the same inflation adjusted pricing levels (about $20 to $25 for a good game in the 80's).
I'm headed the other way on this train. I've been reducing cable and it's likely to go black in the next few weeks.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I think the privacy concern here is a real one. However I don't see the big deal about advertising in games. When I'm playing a game like GTA4 which is supposed to be in NYC, or Rainbow 6 vegas, making a city look real is a major part of those games. Real cities have advertising: billboards, storefronts, posters, whatever. "Fake" adds work great for those, but seeing an add for a company I've heard of certainly doesn't hurt the immersion, it can actually help it. Of course this doesn't apply to the stupid big splash-screen adds or things showing up in blatant, or gameplay changing ways. Those are annoying and need to go. Clearly some games can add this (like those I mentioned above) while others, say Final Fantasy or Mario anything will never lend themselves to this. I think it's a matter of context. Grabbing private information from my computer/console to try and customize these adds is a direction I'm not a huge fan of, but this is very much not isolated to video games. It's all over the web and I'm sure advertisers are trying to do it elsewhere.
Dear Activision,
I just found out you are one of the companies that are using massive's massively annoying advertising technology to deliver ads in game. This is unacceptable, I'm not going to pay $100 for a game where I am going to constantly have advertisements thrown at me.
I've just cancelled my guitar hero 5 pre order (which was going to ship out tomorrow). Glad I found out about this now. Just how many in game ads does it take to equal that $100? I don't know myself, but i bet you do. And its probably not a trivial number.
Here's a news flash. WE DO NOT WANT THIS CRAP, AND WE ESPECIALLY DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
Good thing i dont play games.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
.. after she saw all those dp adult ads on that soccer simulation game. And she has not even seen the ads popping up lately on dad's golf game...
This is from Microsoft and has the evil bit set. Mr. Jobs would never let something like that befall his faithful.
No, no, no. Microsoft does not set the evil bit, because they are evil.
What Apple does is set the RDF byte, which although proprietary is built on top of FOSS bits.
Ok, so as long as Massive isn't lying all they know is the game you're playing, which level you're playing and your IP to know where you are located. If you're playing XBox live this is pretty much public information anyway thanks to "live presence" which is available to licensed companies as an SDK from Microsoft. Are you afraid that the advertising company track your lack of skill on Barbie Horse Adventure or what? There is a valid issue of the publisher making money in addition to the first sale of the product, but how much do you think that adds up to? I don't think you'll get a $60 value from each person playing the game to make it free, so if the publisher decides to spend the extra money on quality rather than reduce the price is that really so bad? (Note: I'm not saying I agree with a $60 price point, just that it is the price of a premium game these days)
This is kind of old news, Penny Arcade even made a comic about this way back in the day:
http://penny-arcade.smugmug.com/photos/215553534_T79Vh-L-2.jpg
So you never bought a DVD with the mandatory "film previews" ?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
It's not like they are spying on anyone in particular. It isn't personal - it's automated targeting.
"And, gratified by the success of this technology, what would be the next logical step of companies like Massive? Wouldn't they seek new publishers and use it in other software?"
The answer there is simple. If MS were to try to implement this kind of thing in, say, Office - how fast do you think people would be jumping over to OpenOffice? They can't make you watch ads if you control the source code.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
From the insanely high prices, to the invasive capitalist malware like securom, to this embedded spyware, it just isn't worth my time. I'll stick to playing games from the ~90s, where everything didn't suck. Games today are short, unoptimized (see cross-platform) graphical demos.
It would be trivial for the game to scan your browsing history and bookmarks and then send that information to the ad servers.
> We are all use to it.
Speak for yourself.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The publishers will only be working with Massive for ads within Xbox 360 and PC versions of games, and not those for any other platforms.
PS3 or Wii anyone?
EA I expected to be there, I'm not to terribly surprised that Activision is on it, but I am really disappointed in THQ for being on that list.
every sale lost to ingame advertisement will be attributed to piracy. Some clever sales rep. will probably conclude from ïthat data that the amount of ads has to be increased to stay profitable
Massive's agreement with Blizzard positions the firm as the sole advertising provider for Battle.net, the online Blizzard-only gaming service due for a significant relaunch upon the release of next year's StarCraft II.
I wonder what will be advertised in StarCraft. Maybe interstitial ads during loading.
One of my back-burner ideas is to write a video player that inserts ads whenever the stream isn't keeping up. Recognize breaks in the video, and buffer ahead until you have enough video locally to play to the next break. During idle periods, download ads. Whenever the player doesn't have the main stream buffered out to the next break, play ads until the stream catches up. "And now, a word from our sponsor".
I'm tempted to put this into VideoLan as a joke, and have it run 1950s drive in movie ads.
...The more attractive my old Megadrive and SNES look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nfs_shift
I was going to buy it for the PC. The most I might do now is pirate it. I'll let all my gamer friends and meatspace motorsport buddies know about the in-game advertising and privacy risks as well.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I've been waiting for years for this whole advertisement business to collapse in on its own.
Fact is, nobody can really say how much it works, or doesn't. What science is there in marketing knows that 50-90% of all advertisement is simply burnt money. The problem is that they can't say which ones.
So, the business has expanded and expanded and expanded, until you can't go anywhere without being bombarded by ads. When things go badly, do more of the same. Sad how humans always work that way, no matter if its war, politics, banking, business...
It'll be a big bust one day, and after that we're finally free of that terror(*). Well, one can hope.
(*) no, advertisement won't go away. But this constant, permanent, noisy and interruptive stuff will.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why do companies have to be so covert and sneaky about it? Why don't they just ASK users to let them know what kinds of products they'd be interested in knowing about? This method is so much more transparent, and it completely negates any notion that they have to profile everything you do in order to figure out which ads to feed you. Ultimately, they really don't need to know any more than what you choose to tell them.
Eagerly anticipated games... will feature the technology that continuously collects 'anonymous' information about users, sends them to the Massive database for analysis...
My money is my vote; I vote, "No".
Haven't bought a game since HL2 & Steam made me register online to play. I do not play online w/ cheaters & idjits. Now no LAN without WAN on Starcraft 2? I doubt they're giving away the vehicle to profit off me and my habits, so my entertainment budget will be spent elsewhere. No, I haven't and won't be downloading any cracked, infested copies, either.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
I have never bought a NFS title. I always pirate that shit.
You are a sheep.
How do you know in advance that a game has advertising or not? Also, what if the advertising is in the multi-player part only?
A game like Need for Speed or a sports game that already has fixed in game advertisement (billboards when or realistic advertising around the field) I don't see being a big deal. Or any other game set in a situation where there is realistically going to be ads in the environment (futuristic games that have electronic billboards, etc.
The trick is integrating it into the game so the instant you see it you don't think, 'wtf is that doing here'.
I wonder how can companies that sell ads to games think that those ads will do what they are supposed to be doing if players do not want those ads in the first place? I personally HATE every kind of ad there is. If I need something I get something. Simple as that. And forcing ads to games I might actually pay, I despise the idea to that way make me also pay for the ads.
I cannot even begin to understand what slim chance of thinking goes thru in-game ad seller's head that makes them think the players would like to PAY to get the ads? I know the reason for the ads is money, but it is like me wondering whether or not a bear would like to stand completely still while I aim it with a rifle.
I will either do my utmost to block ad-servers or then avoid ad-infested games altogether. Even if my only reason would be to keep me from donating money to ad-seller.
I would make ads illegal globally if I had the chance.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
If you play online, you have to deal with fees, cheaters, bigots, ass-cams, and now up-to-date ads. Unless it's with MMOs, you can get along fine without online gaming. I'd rather just have friends over or direct connect with them (i.e. over VPN, etc).
Twinstiq, game news
Boycotting games, or for that matter any other media (music, movies, etc) for reasons of principals doesn't actually have the intended effect.
If game sales are low, the publisher is going to blame is piracy. Not due to people boycotting the game due to shitty DRM, crappy bugs, shallow gameplay, etc, but piracy. What will this result in? More research into developing the perfect game, which publishers will purchase and force developers to integrate into their game, resulting in less time/money being put into actually making the game.
I have no stats to suggest that boycotts don't work. Just observations and a cynical opinion of the guys at the top, who don't understand the underlying issues and only care about revenue reports.
I haven't bought new games for a few years now because of the DRM and advertising, but there are too many gamers willing to pay despite the B.S. Doesn't look like my boycott is working....
So why have game companies adopted this sort of shit, even though their market research tells them that their customers hate it? Blame Wall Street. It's no coincidence that publicly traded companies like EA and Activision are the pioneers of this garbage, and privately-held Valve refuses to participate (see their longstanding refusal to charge for DLC on the Xbox, for example). Valve knows that in the long-run, angering their customers will result in fewer gamers and a declining industry. Are EA and Activision too retarded to realize this? No! But their executives are under pressure to deliver results every single quarter. If you didn't know this, video games are only profitable for one quarter a year, around Christmas.
The dream of the suits has always been to find a way to generate more consistent streams of revenue, so that rather than losing money for 3 quarters, you make money for all 4. Track the rise of subscription-based MMOs, charging for DLC, in-game-ads and Xbox Live, it coincides nicely with Wall Street putting greater and greater pressure for game companies to deliver consistent results. As a result, more and more gamers become disillusioned with the medium, shrinking the customer pool more and more, causing the suits to demand even GREATER ways to wring hard-earned cash out of their customers. All because the fuckers on Wall Street (whose genius caused our current recession) are too stupid to realize that a business that makes enough money one quarter a year while pleasing its customers is better than one that makes money four quarters a year while pissing them off.
Is it any coincidence that two of the most profitable and successful PC game developers are privately-held Valve, and famously-insulated-from-the-suits Blizzard? The assholes who control the money used to finance games are just as good at running game companies as they are at buying mortgages.
People hail Steve Jobs as a genius -- but the only advantage Apple has is the same advantage that Valve has. They realize that the best business strategy is the one that's worked since the beginning of capitalism: Please your customers. There's no future in Wall Street's current infatuation with predatory capitalism.
let them advertise!!
ads make money
I would rather personalised ads than ads for a longer sex life (not that I'm saying it would happen)
I'm a troll for speaking the truth.
I pay for the ticket to get in. I usually stay out of the theater for as long as possible but those that sit there from the very first minutes are subjected to numerous advertisements, and not just cool new trailers. That is advertising, in a product I payed for. And that is without discussing in-movie ads, sponsorships and product placements.
I have nothing against in-game advertising, mostly because I unconsciously censor them from perception, but also because they can add some realism, as much as I hate to admit it. I mean, when I drive around in [insert racing game here] and I see billboards and adverts, or if there are posters on the edges of football fields, it seems very realistic to me. And it's a reasonable tactic for a publisher to take.
But if it becomes excessive, if the ads are up in my face, interrupting my game and preventing my progress, then I want the price slashed. If I'm still playing this game altogether.
No one ever said being a Heretic was easy.
Let us meet again in "Less Interesting Times"
It is said the system collects anonymous information and uses it to select which ad to display to the player.
I'm a bit puzzled about what type of said anonymous information can be relevant and expressive enough to actually provide properly chosen (with respect to the ad provider) to the user. Considering the aforementionned NFS: Shift, I can't really see what information apart things like the type and color of the car and the average driving speed can be collected in-game; and I don't see how that can help provide more than very broadly targetted ads ("Discount on fast driving red cars at Bob's Cars this week!").
Or do they collect anonymous information even when the game is not running as well?
the fuckers on Wall Street (whose genius caused our current recession) are too stupid to realize that a business that makes enough money one quarter a year while pleasing its customers is better than one that makes money four quarters a year while pissing them off.
But it's not. Better. For them, I mean. The gamers and the people actually in the industry don't have any say in it - it's the people who own the shares who realise that if they pressure companies as hard as possible to be profitable RIGHT NOW and damn the torpedoes, then the shareholders can move on to the next company once the current one gasps its last and gives up the ghost.
Perhaps a better strategy might be to disallow more than 49% of any corporate entity's shares from being traded on the stock exchange?
Your typical next-gen console game costs upwards of 25 million dollars to develop - which is mostly paying for the 150+ person development team and their equipment for a few years. That's not even touching the marketing budget, which is often as large. You need to have a million-plus selling title to even hope to break even. And unlike movies, there's no real secondary revenue - DVD sales, syndication rights, etc. While it's not unheard of for someone to purchase a 5 year old or 10 year old movie, game sales are basically zero after a year or two. And between pirates and used-game sales (which rape the industry, especially when stores like EB sell used copies like they're new), your chances of success are very rough.
The industry's core business model is very much at risk. With each successive generation, increasing numbers of small developers are forced to get acquired or go bankrupt. Someone mentioned Valve in this thread - hell, Valve is one of the few successful independent developers remaining! If the next generation of consoles sees another tripling in cost (like the previous one did), there will be very few companies left standing.
Given this climate, it's not surprising that companies are desperately doing everything they can to generate revenue. Ads are annoying, yes - but it's not like developers are putting ads in the game just to make an extra buck. And ads are just the beginning - it won't be long until the big players switch to entirely digital distribution, which will eliminate used-game sales and the retailer's cut and drastically reduce piracy.
These changes may have a negative impact on the user experience, but if game developers can't find more sources of revenue there will be no user experience at all.
It's no coincidence that publicly traded companies like EA and Activision are the pioneers of this garbage, and privately-held Valve refuses to participate (see their longstanding refusal to charge for DLC on the Xbox, for example).
Except they stopped refusing that. The upcoming new campaign for Left 4 Dead will be free on PC, for-pay on the 360.
Is it any coincidence that two of the most profitable and successful PC game developers are privately-held Valve, and famously-insulated-from-the-suits Blizzard?
Blizzard is starting to pull these kinds of stunts as well. StarCraft 2: no LAN support, no single player without connecting to Battle.net, three campaigns sold separately etc..
I'm not really disagreeing with your point, just pointing out that your examples don't fly anymore.
I couldn't care less about a dynamic 'billboard' that loads ads based on other shit I do with my computer while I'm driving a car down a street at 145mph in Need for Speed Shift.
I think it's pretty impressive to be honest.
I've come to the conclusion that I am okay with something like this because I am not a silver spoon fed bitch like most of you are.
It's no coincidence that publicly traded companies like EA and Activision are the pioneers of this garbage, and privately-held Valve refuses to participate (see their longstanding refusal to charge for DLC on the Xbox, for example). Valve knows that in the long-run, angering their customers will result in fewer gamers and a declining industry.
What the fuck? I guess your brain must have selectively filtered out the unremovable ads that have been present in CS 1.6 for years (courteousy of Massive Inc no less). Unfortunately there are too many people like you being duped by Valves Reality Distortion Field, and are doing gamers a tremendous disservice by giving Valve a free ride on several issues. Steam is and has always been a resource sucking DRM scheme dressed up as something less repugnant. Shame you won't find out until you want to play 10 year old games on machine from that same era, or find your account suddenly disabled with no explanation. You remind me of Apple fanbois.
Oh great, I hadn't even finished reading your post before making the Apple fanboy statement. Some things really do speak for themselves.
When asked for nationality enter "Australian", they have data protection laws that demand any software with this type of monitoring has to have the option of being switched off! Any game that cannot switch this off has 2 choices: cannot sell their games in Australia or cannot activate this feature without punitive fines.
Also applies to all Australian anywhere in the world...hence, we're all Auzzies mate.
...be playing with my network connection offline.
Seriously: It's really not so bad having real-life ads; so long, as they are hard-coded. Active ads go way too far, in my opinion.
Ah, the fond memories of funvertisements...
Non-supporter of Online Activation and any other draconian DRM
I remember a "wtf moment" years ago when I installed a new version of Quicken and saw advertising within the program. It's sad that we now consider things like that to be normal, but it isn't surprising. Mad Magazine used to have some really funny satires of how sneaky the advertising industry was in trying to slip in ads everywhere imaginable.
No, you're a troll for trolling. Any validity your point may have had (and that is arguable at best. A source for your $6-8 figure would help) was lost when you started frothing about "idiots screaming bloody murder" and "crying little bitches."
Don't express yourself like a bratty 10-year-old if you don't want to be treated like one.
.... now many of us will likely replace our current PC with a new one. Well I would suggest that you move all of your personal data to a different PC. Then use one as a gaming PC, and use the other as a personal pc. It's a tad more expensive, but then the gaming companies have nothing to target their ads to. You won't have browsing history, you won't have personal data available to them and so all they will do is advertise to you the products you already play. That's where I think targeted ads are almos stupid, they tend to try to target ads at you for places that you shop at already so it's more of a waste of money. Give them less info, then thier ability to target ads to you is even more limited.
At least that's my take on it. I'm probably wrong though.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Honestly, I think in-game advertising does wonders for increasing the realism factor. How many cities have you been to where there were no billboards and the taxi cabs lacked advertisements on them? If done right (IE, no crazy ass popups or anything else that's ridiculously annoying), properly placed in-game advertising increases the realism factor, thus helping to create a more believable environment.
Blizzard signed the advertising deal with Massive to display ads on the battle.net website ONLY. They've specifically stated that it doesn't cover in-game ads. This has been reported here as well as in many other stories that can be found with a Google search.
So, hopefully no in-game ads from Blizzard. I don't know about the other publishers listed.
If I'm playing NHL 2010 or w/e and there's an ad on a billboard for a game I might be interested in or a drink I might want to try... so what? Can anyone tell me what harm will come to me by not blacklisting this?
At last... Totally "anonymously" premade sailormoon furry porn while playing assasins creed 2 :)
I am SO looking forward to this
What the Hell?
I do like Valve, but I'm far from an Apple fanboy. However, the fact that there ARE a lot of Apple fanboys should tell you that a lot of people are very happy with their purchases. How many EA fanboys do you know?
And for the record, I've never had any problems with Steam. It seems like a pretty reasonable system given the very real concerns about piracy on the PC.
1: firebomb the corporate headquarters of the jackass publisher who thought it was a good idea to begin with. i think is completely justified. block fire exits for bonus points.
2: take a hammer to the hands of the coders who would work for dev company stupid enough to deal with said publishers. to say they have no part in this would be foolish.
3: ?????
4: Profit.
was the last time I went out to the movies. I may not be able to stop this rapine bullshit, but I will not be subjected to it if I can reasonably help it.
It was bound to happen, the companies want to make more money and advertising is the easiest way for them to do this. But how they get the information will need to be put under scrutiny. The EULA's will be worded in a way that allows them to access the data on your pc, so it doesn't infringe on privacy, since you have to accept EULA to install and play. I think one thing these companies aren't thinking of with this, is that the advertisements showing in game could potentially be for one of their competitors. Could be playing an EA game and see Ads plasters all over the place for Activision games. Wonder how they'll try to filter that out.