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?"

Comments

Will not work.

[jack2000]

I have two words for you: DNS Blacklist

Re:Will not work.

[RobVB]

If Blizzard is going to implement this, they'll probably do it via Battle.net somehow. And knowing how much money Blizzard is raking in, I wouldn't be surprised if other publishers got the balls to set up restrictive you-must-be-on-line-and-connected-to-us-if-you-want-to-play "services".

How are we supposed to react to something like this?

The only easy answer is "don't buy those games". The sad part is that most major games will probably start using this or similar technologies.

Re:Will not work.

[jack2000]

Only way in hell I'm going to buy such a game is if it's free. When I pay, I expect not to be pestered.

Re:Will not work.

[ZosX]

I have two words for you: DNS Blacklist

Great now I need adblock for games. Isn't need for speed commercialized enough anyways? This sort of thing has been going on in hollywood for a long time now. It was only a matter of time before games started doing it. Now with the internet they can just stream you fresh targeted ads. It would be nice if people just voted no to ads with their pocketbook, but I doubt most people would care. They are already used to a steady stream of ads in their daily lives. Sad really.

Re:Will not work.

[Tynin]

Only way in hell I'm going to buy such a game is if it's free. When I pay, I expect not to be pestered.

I'm going to make an assumption that you also do not have cable/satellite TV? I can only imagine that sooner than later game companies are going to start force feeding us ads and tell us that it is value added as the additional cash flow is needed in order maintain and expand on... well, anything they feel like telling us. And the sheep will continue to pay and ask for more... :(

Re:Will not work.

[Toonol]

Absolutely. That's why Starcraft 2 is such a consumer-unfriendly game. I'm not going to buy it; I rather hope nobody else does, although I'm sure they will. Once publishers manage to get acceptance for the idea that a game constantly needs to have an online connection, i.e., they will have seized ownership away from the consumer. They can deactivate, alter, and advertise in the game however they want, at any time.

A lot of publishers are watching how Starcraft 2 does. I can only hope it gets the Spore treatment from the public.

Re:Will not work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only way in hell I'm going to buy such a game is if it's free.

Huh?

Re:Will not work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Solved?

People will just be playing on private battle.net servers. http://pvpgn.berlios.de/

Re:Will not work.

[morghanphoenix]

I purposefully avoid adds that pop up in games or on TV. If I want to buy something I go looking for it, I don't automatically jump on whatever is thrust in my face the most. I want comparisons, user reviews, studies on safety and privacy if it applies. I don't care about brand names, in most cases don't care about appearance, and sure don't care about catchy jingles that get in your head and won't leave. If I find myself humming about mini-sirloin burgers when I'm out looking for something to eat I can guarantee that I won't be stopping at Jack-in-the-Box.

Re:Will not work.

[Evil Shabazz]

Good luck with that. You have heard of guys like RAZOR1911?

Re:Will not work.

[VGPowerlord]

I'm going to make an assumption that you also do not have cable/satellite TV? I can only imagine that sooner than later game companies are going to start force feeding us ads and tell us that it is value added as the additional cash flow is needed in order maintain and expand on... well, anything they feel like telling us. And the sheep will continue to pay and ask for more... :(

The problem with this comparison is that cable/satellite TV is a service that brings me other peoples products that I otherwise normally wouldn't get. For Internet games, this is what my ISP does. My ISP doesn't have advertisements, but I still see them on the web.

With a game, I've already paid for the product. If it's an online game: well, you should have done the FPS model of having groups host their own servers. However, make sure you choose a good model for this. Valve has this mostly right. Left 4 Dead for PC, however, is a bad example of how to do this, because player groups join random servers by default. This defeats the entire purpose of having separate servers.

Now, getting back to ads in games, some ad game modifications aren't limited to multi-player Internet games. WipEout HD was a good example of this. WipEout HD was updated at some point to add additional advertisements during the game's load screens, even during single player games. The game's level load time was also increased in order to show these ads to you for longer periods of time. Video example.

This update was killed in early August and the advertisements removed because of the uproar it generated in the community.

Re:Will not work.

[nmb3000]

People will just be playing on private battle.net servers

PvPGN is awesome -- I run a server at my school for a bunch of friends -- but to think that it will work with the new Battle.net that Blizzard is rolling out is absurd. At the very best it will probably be a year before they have a workable product (and if even then). Also, you have to consider that Blizzard knows very well about projects like it and will intentionally design the system to prevent private servers from being used.

After seeing what Blizzard did to bnetd and their new-found hatred for LAN play, I'd be willing to bet that cryptography will play a big part in the new Battle.net service. More than likely, anyone that wants to run a private server will have to do some serious work on the game client to get it to connect to non-Blizzard servers (as opposed to now where you just give the game your private server's IP address). The current Battle.net is a complete joke in terms of security making it easy to reverse engineer and re-implement. YCBYA that Blizzard won't make that mistake again.

Re:Will not work.

[stimpleton]

"I can only hope it gets the Spore treatment from the public."

A No.1 seller and recieved positively?

Re:Will not work.

[Samah]

Once publishers manage to get acceptance for the idea that a game constantly needs to have an online connection...

If you bothered to keep up with gaming news, you'd know that SC2 will now have an offline mode (or something similar) which disables your friends list and achievements, but still allows you to play peer-to-peer.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94135-StarCraft-II-Will-Have-LAN-After-All-Almost

If it's anything remotely like Steam, that's good enough for me.

Re:Will not work.

[Toonol]

Under-selling projections, a PR black eye, publicity, thousands of critical reviews, causing a revision in corporate policy?

That's the SPORE effect I was talking about.

Re:Will not work.

[Samah]

As I understand it, then, the proposed system would require an initial internet connection to authenticate via the Battle.net servers, and then would revert to normal peer-to-peer functionality, perhaps checking in every so often to update friends lists and the like."

I believe you're missing the key word "perhaps". There is no evidence that SC2 will definitely require a permanent battle.net connection. Likewise there has been no official statement that it will not. Given Blizzard's history of "maybe", "should", "possibly", etc., we really don't know what's going to happen until the beta comes out, so it's best not to jump to conclusions. Depending on how the beta goes, they may even decide to change it for the final release.

Re:Will not work.

[shutdown -p now]

But many games will still play offline... I was pleasantly surprised when my internet connection was broken, that I could still play Empire: Total War.. Steam just prompted for "offline mode" which to me made total sense, as I only play single player scenarios. It took my aggravation of having purchased a boxed game and ending up with a Steam install down a notch.

You've got very lucky, then. Google for "Steam offline mode" to see what I mean. In general, to play any Steam-enabled game offline, you need to go into "Offline mode" beforehand (i.e. while you still have Internet connection); also, it remembers the date, and will only let you play that way for so long. If you suddenly get connectivity troubles, too bad - I remember how extremely annoyed I was when my ISP went down for 2 days, and Left 4 Dead wouldn't even start - much less play - even in single player.

Hacking

[Farlan]

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?

Re:Hacking

[Loconut1389]

Its the new adkers diet!

Re:Hacking

[RobVB]

PC games have had ads for a very long time. The first game that comes to mind is World Cup 98, which had ads for Snickers, JVC, Mastercard, Opel, Fujifilm, Gilette, Braun and Adidas (check the screenshots on Gamespot). Something like that doesn't bother me at all, it adds to realism and immersion (it's better than billboards that say Snockers, JCV and Adadis), and I'm fine with publishers trying to make a few extra bucks.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not the ads that I'm worried about, it's the "anonymous" information they're sending back and forth. I trust they won't send any of my "personal" information (name, telephone number, personal e-mails), but where do you draw the line?

Re:Hacking

[Dachannien]

Games like World Cup 98 are exceptions to the rule, because the advertisements reflect what you see on TV when you watch those sporting events, lending an air of authenticity to them.

The vast majority of games are not set in the modern real world, though, and advertisements for modern real world products are inappropriate in those games.

Re:Genius

[ColdWetDog]

A little like iTunes Genius feature?

Heavens no. This is from Microsoft and has the evil bit set. Mr. Jobs would never let something like that befall his faithful.

what information?

[gbjbaanb]

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.

How to fix this

[Drakin020]

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.

Re:How to fix this

[girlintraining]

So stick by your guns, and just say no. Else nothing will ever change.

Because that's been so successful in the past! So the 1% of the population that's actually computer literate enough to (a) know about this and (b) care won't buy their game. They won't notice. So how about Plan B:

Patch the game or setup firewall rules to block such communications, like via a proxy or some-such.

Or Plan C:

Reverse engineer the protocol, then poison-pill the marketing data.

Re:How to fix this

[girlintraining]

End up in jail :\

Integrity has no need of laws. Too many things are allowed these days because of unjust laws that protect unethical conduct. "No duty, however, binds us to these so-called laws, whose corrupting influence menaces what is noblest in our being..." -- Benjamin Constant. I've always advocated doing what you feel in your heart is right; You'll be damned for it anyway. A lot of people here have the sentiment that what this company is doing is wrong -- they need to explore those feelings on a deeper level and then resolve to a course of action. Most likely, they will choose to do nothing (and that is fine). But if they choose that out of fear of punishment then we've become a sorry lot indeed.

Re:How to fix this

[DrEldarion]

I'm sorry, but what right do you have to fuck with someone else's data like that?

This company is not in the wrong, they're just doing something that you don't like. They're putting a condition on the playing of this game - if you don't like that condition, you're more than free to not play it. You can't dictate your terms to them just because you feel like you have some right to have whatever you want.

It's one thing if they're tracking you without you knowing about it. If every human was assigned a unique number that the government used to track your every action, I would have no problem messing with that data. However, to go into someone else's system and screw with data when the only thing tying you to it is the fact that you want to play a certain game, that's wrong.

How would you like to admin a system that someone was messing with just because they didn't like how you did business? Do you feel all forms of "vigilante justice" are justified?

Re:How to fix this

[girlintraining]

I'm sorry, but what right do you have to fuck with someone else's data like that?

It's not someone else's data. It's data from one machine which they have no legal control or right to sending data to theirs. If their servers accept and process the data, and no password, key, or other means of repudiating the data is available, there's no ethical quandry. The interface is public and the intent of the interface is to accept data from public (and unvalidated) sources.

This company is not in the wrong, they're just doing something that you don't like.

If you think you're right and I'm wrong, and I think I'm right and you're wrong, who do you think I'm going to choose? :\

It's one thing if they're tracking you without you knowing about it.

Ignoring the fact that this statement is entirely immaterial to the issue at hand...Really? So it would be okay for me to follow you everywhere you go in public, as long as I announced it to you? If I stood outside your door when you went into private areas like your house, and patiently waited until you came out in public again?

However, to go into someone else's system and screw with data...

You have assumed that data is being altered, rather than created. Oops. You're also implying that entry is forced, rather than explicitly allowed.

...when the only thing tying you to it is the fact that you want to play a certain game, that's wrong.

So the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something is dependent on whether a thing is done for pleasure or business?

Do you feel all forms of "vigilante justice" are justified?

That's a loaded question, so I'll equivocate instead: History has demonstrated that when all other forms of redress has been exhausted, "vigilante justice" as you call it, has proven an effective means of promoting social change. so-called "vigilantes" have been educating the general public and IT professionals for decades by uncovering and publishing security flaws, releasing proof-of-concept code, and demonstrating the necessity of validating input before processing it. What you call "vigilantism" is what others would define as a "public service".

Yay!

[osu-neko]

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.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it just means more money for the people who produce games, so they can have more money...

Re:Yay!

[Tom]

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!

Yeah, as if that is going to happen.

The games industry is going down (in both senses) the same route that the movie, and music industries have. Who do you think will profit from this, the producers and artists, or the distributors? My bet's not on the developers.

Re:Yay!

[arkhan_jg]

In 1982, the average CEO salary was 47 times higher than that of the average production worker.

In 1990, it was 107 times higher.

In 2001, it was 525 times higher.

In 2004, it was 431 times higher (that's the dot.com crash for you)

Now, you're going to tell me with a straight face that the average CEO's job has got 10 times harder in the last 30 years? That they *really* work *430 times* harder or longer than your average non-management worker? Of course the CEO is free to look elsewhere for work; he's getting paid several million a year and no doubt has a large bank balance to go with it. If he screws up, he doesn't get fired, he just spends a couple of months playing golf, then gets snapped up again by another board because he has 'experience'.

Ordinary workers have to take what they can get, especially in times like this. Those with the money make the rules, and the people without money can literally go hungry. And since I can almost hear the words 'well, why don't you start your own business then' forming, I'll point out that they're calling it a credit crunch for a reason - even current functional small businesses can't get sufficient credit, new startups are really struggling to get the funding needed to get started.

So how do CEOs of large companies get away with these large salary increases? Well, they're voted on by the board of directors - who are all largely non-executive, and CEOs of other companies. What goes around, comes around etc. So why do the shareholders approve it? Because they're told by the board 'this is the current market rate, and if you want the talent, you have to pay for it'. And given most of the stockholders are pension firms etc rather than individuals, they don't like rocking the boat. I've seen this at a couple of AGM's recently - small shareholders revolting over CEO compensation, but the majority large stockholders keep quiet, and nothing changes.

Small business owners who actually work in the company as CEO in the first place have a direct incentive to grow the business by reinvesting profits. CEOs of large companies have an incentive to extract as much money personally as the board will let them get away with.

Discount?

[silver69]

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.

I'm okay with this!

[MrMista_B]

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.

Simple... vote with your wallet and let them know

[Fallen Kell]

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).

It could be acceptable if...

[RockClimbingFool]

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...

Amazes me

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the same with me - I started gaming in the mid-late 70's, and as you say, for a few decades there, my computer was mine.

But times change. You, me, and the handful of others who think the same way simply don't matter. There aren't enough of us. The shift will happen whether we want it to or not. Young people really *don't* care about privacy. (As a rule of thumb - there are exceptions of course - there are 17 y.o's who agree with us, just not very many).

I believe things like this are part of getting old (I'm 51 now). Eventually we'll be shut out of all of it, because the things we care about no longer matter to the vast majority. The ability to have a Turing complete computing device which serves no other master than you will be gone, because both governments and big companies want control over your computing experience. There will be DRM down to the hardware level so that you can be stopped from running things like adblock which harm someone's revenue stream. You will only be able to run signed software (it's starting already in mobile computing environments). So that Iranian protesters can be cut off en-mass by a central authority. Only "trusted" systems will be allowed on the network. Want to do online banking? Play a game? Send a holographic mail to your pal? Sorry, your system isn't trusted if it's still under your control. And as long as people can still view whatever replaces youtube and myspace by then, they won't care.

It's the way of things. I'll go down fighting, supporting openness, but I'm under no illusions that it's a war I'm gonna win. The lack of my $45 and yours for some game won't change shit, because for each one like us, there are a thousand 15 year olds who don't know ring-0 from their ass, and will happily install Tages or SecureRom to play the latest shooter. They don't understand or care about control of their own computer being taken away from them. It's not really a computer to them - it's entertainment, ala television.

Realism

[theJmtz]

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.

Cancelled my Guitar Hero 5 order

[kupekhaize]

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.

Re:Cancelled my Guitar Hero 5 order

[Hurricane78]

Those $100 equaled about 1000-2000 clicks (not page views) on a default banner advertisement on the home page of a large web portal in 2005. At a typical click rate (back then, before AdBlock) of 0.03-0.04% (I kid you not!), this results in 33333 to 50000 page views with that ad on it. It's a rough calculation, but you can get a feeling for it that way.

Ick

[nurb432]

Good thing i dont play games.

Mom banned me playing games

[Anonymous Coward]

.. 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...

Re:I don't care and almost no one else does, eithe

[John Hasler]

> We are all use to it.

Speak for yourself.

Windows & X-Box only

[morghanphoenix]

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.

The more I hear stuff like this...

[PenisLands]

...The more attractive my old Megadrive and SNES look.

Re:Genius

[ArundelCastle]

Heavens no. This is from Microsoft and has the evil bit set. Mr. Jobs would never let something like that befall his faithful.

Actually I think evil takes 4-bits. Why? It's a HEX.

Sorry, I had to nibble.

the next bubble

[Tom]

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.

Re:"When I pay, I expect not to be pestered"

[hairyfeet]

Everyone who has bandwidth caps should figure up how much bandwidth their crap is sucking and hand these assclowns a nice bill at the end of the month. If enough folks had a living shitfit and handed them bills for the bandwidth they are wasting I'm sure the bad publicity alone would be enough to get them to STFU and quit this crap. We should also have a website set up listing the ads shown on these things so we can boycott the products. As we have seen with the Obama "racist" remark by Beck advertisers don't want their ads dropped into the middle of a shitstorm, which is EXACTLY what we should give them!

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I am really tired of this bullshit. I don't even buy games on release date anymore because the &^%$&^&%! DRM don't work on my 64bit XP (it IS in the drive, you stupid fucking thing!) so I have to wait until all the patches, caused by companies putting out code so shitty it smells worse than a porta-potty at a chili cookoff, have been cracked so I can actually use what I fucking PAID FOR, but now, after assraping us on the price AND bending us over with DRM infections (and as a PC repairman who has had to clean up the mess that SecuROM+Starforce+Safedisc caused I can assure you it IS nastier than any trojan out there) now they want to bend us over AGAIN with ads? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you greedy little bastards.

Why in the hell should I NOT pirate your shit, if you are gonna treat me like dirt, spit in my face, and kick me one in the balls for good measure after I give you my hard earned cash? I predict the piracy rates will go through the roof as the pirates figure out how to kill this shit, making the pirate version yet again leagues better than the actual retail version. And I apologize to any who I may have offended with my language, but I am so tired of these game companies acting like their shit don't stink and finding ever newer and nastier ways to treat us like dirt. Especially when in my favorite genre (FPS) they seem to be able to do nothing be rehash the same tired old shit year after year, just tacking on more bling to it.

Yes, let's go back to WW2 AGAIN, it isn't like we have all seen that shit like a 1000 times over before! Oh yes, give us more "rubberband" AI, where you either get guys that are so stupid they can't figure out something is wrong when you pop a cap in their buddy from 20 yards away, or they have grunts that can instantly find you from any cover, hit you with a crappy pistol for 100+ yards and take more damage than fricking Michael Myers and keep on coming. Yeah that's so much fun. Talentless hacks.

Re:Genius

[broken_chaos]

I believe it's default state is also off. It asks you if you want to turn it on, but if you say no it pretty much just stays out of your way (with the exception of if you go to try using a feature that requires it - it'll ask you again if you do).

Why this shit happens: It's the financing, stupid

[CubeNudger]

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.

Re:"When I pay, I expect not to be pestered"

[SurfMan]

You are my new Jesus!

Re:"When I pay, I expect not to be pestered"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even buy games on release date anymore because the &^%$&^&%! DRM don't work on my 64bit XP (it IS in the drive, you stupid fucking thing!)

You have a curious self-censorship policy.