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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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: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.

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]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.