What ads are you *not* OK with in games?

124»

Posts

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    He's no different from the advertisers, only at least they pay the people whose property they deface.
    Only if you want to be reductive about it. In Banksy's view, *anyone* has (or should have) the right to do what he does, while the advertising company wants exclusive rights. For him, private ownership of public space is a contradiction in terms. You can absolutely discuss the validity of this, you can criticise him, but that criticism should be based on something accurate.

    If the graffiti is done without permission, it's vandalism, regardless of who does it. This "It's in public, I can do whatever I want to it"-mentality also leads to the idiots that go around whacking side-view mirrors off cars for shits and giggles. In the end, everything is "in public" if you can access it in any way. Still doesn't justify damaging it.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Not sure whether this isn't taking us away from the actual topic too much. I think there's at least a discussion to be had about the difference between graffiti and outright destruction with respect to notions of property and public space, but that's definitely not within the purview of this thread.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    LilnoobsAegeriRhan9TychoCelchuuuJusticeforPlutoLostNinja
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    He's no different from the advertisers, only at least they pay the people whose property they deface.
    Only if you want to be reductive about it. In Banksy's view, *anyone* has (or should have) the right to do what he does, while the advertising company wants exclusive rights. For him, private ownership of public space is a contradiction in terms. You can absolutely discuss the validity of this, you can criticise him, but that criticism should be based on something accurate.

    That's a horrible view that if enforced would mean an even larger disgusting increase of ads on every viable surface. To include covering up whatever he's vandalized.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html

    If only we were so lucky.

    programjunkie
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    What Hulu Plus does is beyond my intolerance line. I'm fairly tolerant of advertisements, but I find it galling that their paid service has 1.5 minute plus ads.

    I'm also not a fan of the volume spike during ads, either online or on TV. Though that is nothing new.

    I have yet to see any advertising in gaming that has irritated me. I would abhor if loading screens had non-in-universe ads or if games had excessive real world product placement.

    Also, I don't use AdBlock. If I used AdBlock, I'd never find the best free virus scanners. You know how many times I get notified that my computer may be infected with a virus by some new antivirus software I've never heard of? If I had AdBlock on, I'd never know!

    Drez on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Let me amend the above: I find it creepy that I'll be looking for something on Amazon and then, nary a few hours later, Facebook is trying to advertise the same exact product (same model and everything) to me. I'm not really going to take up arms against it, but it's creepy.

    Drez on
    Magic PinkLostNinja
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    He's no different from the advertisers, only at least they pay the people whose property they deface.
    Only if you want to be reductive about it. In Banksy's view, *anyone* has (or should have) the right to do what he does, while the advertising company wants exclusive rights. For him, private ownership of public space is a contradiction in terms. You can absolutely discuss the validity of this, you can criticise him, but that criticism should be based on something accurate.

    That's a horrible view that if enforced would mean an even larger disgusting increase of ads on every viable surface. To include covering up whatever he's vandalized.

    I don't really follow your logic. Is graffiti somehow an advertisement?

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html

    Awesome. I'd like to see that worldwide, with an exception for modest advertisements of the business themselves (I think McDonald's "Buy two whoppers for $2" on their own property is a reasonable usage).

    And really, I might be convinced otherwise by hard data, but I'd like to see all advertising in events / video games / whatever banned unless the product is free at point of use (and F2P with microtransactions models don't count). So, Flappy Bird can show advertisements, but Battlefield cannot. An exception for newspapers or magazines might make sense, perhaps.

    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    And really, I might be convinced otherwise by hard data, but I'd like to see all advertising in events / video games / whatever banned unless the product is free at point of use.

    Are you willing to pay substantially more for that privilege?

    The stadium you go to to watch an NFL game and the salaries of everyone involved making it happen is not fully paid for by the tickets people buy; TV contracts exist for rights to claim the ad revenue, billboards all over the stadium subsidize the cost of the stadium... even the uniforms of the players are ads.

    Now, the NFL is a profitable enterprise. And they could probably afford to be less profitable, though I would argue they are better served pumping their profits into building a healthier organization that is more responsible towards the health of their athletes.


    But all of that aside, a ticket to a football game would become the domain of the wealthy if the stadiums were ad free as per your model.

    Xbox Live, which does do substantially more than the competition, would probably end up costing closer to 12 bucks a month / 100 dollars a year for ad-free.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    TychoCelchuuushryke
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    Rhesus PositiveDhalphir
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Does Xbox live do more than the competition? PSN has been more than adequate and has an arguably better feature in the instant game collection. Additionally PSN does not have ads everywhere and whilst they sucked a few years ago in say, download speeds, they are easily at parity these days. When I got my PS3 in June of last year, I was actually quite surprised by how good the download speeds or similar were - which I remembered being utterly awful a few years ago. So I am not exactly sure what benefit these ads on XBL are providing to customers anymore, outside of their benefit to Microsoft.

    In fact, I am not sure about the value of XBL in general, because it's competitors generally offer many of the same services at just as good quality (Netflix for example) but without an overall subscription required.

    Edit: For reference, the only "ad" I have on PSN is a uniquely European problem where my PS3 is convinced that I own sing star for some reason and so it remains stuck on my consoles interface just above my gigantic list of free PSN+ games. As far as I know, the PS4 is equally clean of adverts and I don't think has any oddities like the above.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    ElvenshaemxmarksSpoit
  • KryhsKryhs Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    I'm really, really tired of "but people would lose their jobs!" being the go-to excuse for a ton of the inaction in this world.

  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Does Xbox live do more than the competition? PSN has been more than adequate and has an arguably better feature in the instant game collection. Additionally PSN does not have ads everywhere and whilst they sucked a few years ago in say, download speeds, they are easily at parity these days. When I got my PS3 in June of last year, I was actually quite surprised by how good the download speeds or similar were - which I remembered being utterly awful a few years ago. So I am not exactly sure what benefit these ads on XBL are providing to customers anymore, outside of their benefit to Microsoft.

    In fact, I am not sure about the value of XBL in general, because it's competitors generally offer many of the same services at just as good quality (Netflix for example) but without an overall subscription required.

    Edit: For reference, the only "ad" I have on PSN is a uniquely European problem where my PS3 is convinced that I own sing star for some reason and so it remains stuck on my consoles interface just above my gigantic list of free PSN+ games. As far as I know, the PS4 is equally clean of adverts and I don't think has any oddities like the above.

    Yeah, it's totally my own personal experience but "far" more is in no way true anymore. It used to be, but not any more.

    I pay less, get way, way more, and I can do more when there's outages. PSN goes down, I can still use Netflix. And for me, outages are around the same.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    I'm really, really tired of "but people would lose their jobs!" being the go-to excuse for a ton of the inaction in this world.

    In the context of "let's illegalize large portions of an industry," it's worth considering. Even if you discard that entirely, there's still the loss of revenue streams for things like football games, concerts, etc. I'm not trying to say these reasons are axiomatically so bad you should take no action; I'm just saying they need to be weighed against the good of "make it illegal to show ads in anything that isn't free at point of use."

    Also, "Free at point of use" is not (currently) well defined, since I'm honestly not sure how it applies to recurring payments/subscription based services.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    Elvenshae
  • XixXix Miami/LosAngeles/MoscowRegistered User regular
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    I'm really, really tired of "but people would lose their jobs!" being the go-to excuse for a ton of the inaction in this world.

    The reason we haven't reduced advertising isn't merely because we want people to keep their jobs, it's because people refuse to pay higher prices for the same shit.

    With less advertising opportunity, everything you buy would become more expensive due to higher customer acquisition costs.

    Are you willing to pay $250 a year for an ad-free Xbox Live? No? Then suck up those ads.

  • TPSouTPSou Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Completely misread the title - ignore me!

    TPSou on
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    That's conflating some things. Yeah, McDonald's probably would fire thousands of workers and give the CEO's raises if they had to cut out 50% of their advertisements, but that's not the fault of removing the advertisements, that's the greed in the system. More ads=more jobs is pretty ridiculous. I might buy that more ads=more money, but it's really naive to think that more money=more jobs.

    Lilnoobs on
    Spoit
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    That's conflating some things. Yeah, McDonald's probably would fire thousands of workers and give the CEO's raises if they had to cut out 50% of their advertisements, but that's not the fault of removing the advertisements, that's the greed in the system. More ads=more jobs is pretty ridiculous. I might buy that more ads=more money, but it's really naive to think that more money=more jobs.

    Advertisements are made by people. I am not saying that McDonald's will suddenly fire people because their lack of advertisement leads to less business; I am literally saying that marketing firms would be pretty crippled by blanketly making advertisements illegal.

    E: To be clear, I am not saying "Less advertising = less money. Less money = less jobs." I am saying "Less advertising = Less money for many things that rely on ad revenue (TV, concerts, sporting events, Youtube/other streaming services, and yes, to some extent consoles)" and "Less advertising = less jobs for people making advertisements."

    milski on
    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    Elvenshae
  • rembrandtqeinsteinrembrandtqeinstein Registered User regular
    Apologies for going off topic with my original post.

    Back on topic:
    All advertising is bad in games because it breaks immersion. The joy of games is concentrating on them so fully that for a short period of time that small, understandable game world replaces the chaotic, complicated, and often disappointing "real" world.

    Advertising is intended to remind you of the real world, and is designed to break your concentration so you focus on the ad and not on the game.

    This includes advertising for in-app purchases, and doubly so for IAPs that have gameplay effects. These ads turn gameplay decisions into economic decisions which are inherently unfun.

    Slightly off topic:
    Any game that uses the mechanic of forcing you to wait X amount of realtime for something OR pay real money to remove that wait time is a bad game. I wish I had a big list of every game that uses that mechanic so I can not waste time downloading a trial or watching trailiers for it.

    Zombie Hero
  • KryhsKryhs Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    I am literally saying that marketing firms would be pretty crippled by blanketly making advertisements illegal.

    They deserve to be crippled today from regulation and rules (I'm not implying there are none). Marketing today is barely a science. You put together whatever combination of buzzwords and colors add up to the most visually stimulating picture and then you plaster it in as many places as possible. Awareness marketing is garbage.

  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    I don't agree advertising in games is immersion breaking, at least not inherently. A game set in the real world doesn't lose anything from having real cars, like FORZA for example (which licenses actual cars and yes, that is in game advertising in a way especially because such deals often come with concessions like not being able to wreck them).

    Shit like what Alan Wake pulls? Yeah that crap is awful, but I wouldn't think finding a can of coke in a game to be immersion breaking. In fact it would be a good reminder that the games world is like ours and be less gamey than finding random made up drinks.

    The problem is advertising in games is very rarely the second and I think different laws prevent it. I know for example that Enemy Territory quake wars had in game advertising, but it didn't work in my country for some reason so I only saw generic EDF signs.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Albino Bunny
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    I treat ads in games like I treat ads literally everywhere else.

    /ignore

  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    I am literally saying that marketing firms would be pretty crippled by blanketly making advertisements illegal.

    They deserve to be crippled today from regulation and rules (I'm not implying there are none). Marketing today is barely a science. You put together whatever combination of buzzwords and colors add up to the most visually stimulating picture and then you plaster it in as many places as possible. Awareness marketing is garbage.

    If you truly feel that way, then what do you have to gain by being in this topic? You want to shout about how evil people are, not have any real discussion.

    As for the grand slam example of advertising not breaking immersion: EA sports. I find it very hard to believe that playing with every single real team is *less* immersive than playing with fake teams, or, even worse, bland name products (The New Paris Angels versus the Sherman Waterfowls).

    EDIT: To make another point based on bland name products: Any time a game uses a fake name for a real product, (especially when it's basically shouting "It's this product we didn't talk to!" which seems relatively common in Japanese shows/games), you could probably put the real product there and have a pretty good shot of increasing immersion.

    milski on
    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    ElvenshaeDhalphir
  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    I mean I think the bigger picture here, as it relates to games, is what do you expect of the publisher, or manufacturer.

    Ad people will put an ad anywhere you let them. Literally anywhere. People offer up their cars and bodies for ads, and they get companies that want to use that space.

    But the interesting issue (to me at least) is what these companies - on both sides - want to be associated with. General Electric won't buy the space on some dudes back for a tattoo, but FreeCash4Bling.com often does. And ABC, NBC and CBS won't run ads for AdamAndEve.com, but I can't seem to find a comedy podcast that turns that money down.

    So to me, discussing if ads or good or bad is pointless. They just ARE, and will always be. But someone has to give them the space to do that, and thats the people I'm interested in.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
    Albino Bunny
  • KryhsKryhs Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    If you truly feel that way, then what do you have to gain by being in this topic? You want to shout about how evil people are, not have any real discussion.

    Then on the flip-side your marketing apologist attitude is no different than mine, just on the other end of the scale. I'm very sorry I don't agree with you.

    To be even more strict, the thread is about what ads you are not okay with in games. Anything outside of that has "nothing to do with the topic."

  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    Just like advertisements generate positive awareness for your product, they can generate some sense of awareness or association with what they're tagged along with. You don't want a professional company with little use for small purchases to be associated with back tattoos on dudes who walk around shirtless. You don't want family TV to be associated with sex lines and dating sites. The bigger your product and the more general the audience it applies to, the more you can be selective about advertisements and how they affect your image.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    If you truly feel that way, then what do you have to gain by being in this topic? You want to shout about how evil people are, not have any real discussion.

    Then on the flip-side your marketing apologist attitude is no different than mine, just on the other end of the scale. I'm very sorry I don't agree with you.

    To be even more strict, the thread is about what ads you are not okay with in games. Anything outside of that has "nothing to do with the topic."

    I feel like it is incredibly disingenuous to call me saying "maybe we should consider that literally making advertising broadly illegal could have negative consequences" a flip side to you claiming that everyone who makes advertisements is doing a job that takes zero effort and that they should all be economically crippled. Your fake apology is very goosey. Finally, I said nothing about the topic, just that you don't want to have discussion, and you are making it clear that is the case. So I will no longer be responding to your posts here or elsewhere. There's no point.

    milski on
    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    Elvenshae
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    He's no different from the advertisers, only at least they pay the people whose property they deface.
    Only if you want to be reductive about it. In Banksy's view, *anyone* has (or should have) the right to do what he does, while the advertising company wants exclusive rights. For him, private ownership of public space is a contradiction in terms. You can absolutely discuss the validity of this, you can criticise him, but that criticism should be based on something accurate.

    That's a horrible view that if enforced would mean an even larger disgusting increase of ads on every viable surface. To include covering up whatever he's vandalized.

    I don't really follow your logic. Is graffiti somehow an advertisement?
    An ad is an attempt to persuade people to take a certain action.

    Are Banksy's works devoid of any message whatsoever? I would wager not.

    More to the point, declaring private ownership of a public space a contradiction and anyone should be able to do what they want with it gives those same companies carte blanche to plaster those areas with their own ads.

    Elvenshae
  • XixXix Miami/LosAngeles/MoscowRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Slightly off topic:
    Any game that uses the mechanic of forcing you to wait X amount of realtime for something OR pay real money to remove that wait time is a bad game. I wish I had a big list of every game that uses that mechanic so I can not waste time downloading a trial or watching trailiers for it.

    Not really. Games that encourage you to buy stuff to do stuff you couldn't do before or make yourself stand out to other players are actually worse. I will not play a single one of those games ever.


    I would however play a game that has some kind of realtime wait time, because usually they are management/building type games that are perfect to play for a brief time and then put away and come back to later. Sometimes I'll speed something up if I'm really excited about having it now. The problem occurs when the wait time does not justify the results, then you have a badly designed game that pretty much forces you to speed up everything to have any fun.

    Xix on
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    I am literally saying that marketing firms would be pretty crippled by blanketly making advertisements illegal.

    They deserve to be crippled today from regulation and rules (I'm not implying there are none). Marketing today is barely a science. You put together whatever combination of buzzwords and colors add up to the most visually stimulating picture and then you plaster it in as many places as possible. Awareness marketing is garbage.

    You are showing an almost criminal level of ignorance about this subject, especially given that you are holding a pretty strong opinion on it.

    Dhalphir on
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    He's no different from the advertisers, only at least they pay the people whose property they deface.
    Only if you want to be reductive about it. In Banksy's view, *anyone* has (or should have) the right to do what he does, while the advertising company wants exclusive rights. For him, private ownership of public space is a contradiction in terms. You can absolutely discuss the validity of this, you can criticise him, but that criticism should be based on something accurate.

    That's a horrible view that if enforced would mean an even larger disgusting increase of ads on every viable surface. To include covering up whatever he's vandalized.

    I don't really follow your logic. Is graffiti somehow an advertisement?
    An ad is an attempt to persuade people to take a certain action.

    Are Banksy's works devoid of any message whatsoever? I would wager not.

    More to the point, declaring private ownership of a public space a contradiction and anyone should be able to do what they want with it gives those same companies carte blanche to plaster those areas with their own ads.

    Yeah I think Banksy is being a pretty large idiot if that is his attitude.

    In a world where public space has no restrictions on what anyone can do with it, guess who wins out in having their stuff be visible? Not 20-somethings with no significant resources other than spray cans, I'll tell you that much.

    Quid
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Does Xbox live do more than the competition? PSN has been more than adequate and has an arguably better feature in the instant game collection. Additionally PSN does not have ads everywhere and whilst they sucked a few years ago in say, download speeds, they are easily at parity these days. When I got my PS3 in June of last year, I was actually quite surprised by how good the download speeds or similar were - which I remembered being utterly awful a few years ago. So I am not exactly sure what benefit these ads on XBL are providing to customers anymore, outside of their benefit to Microsoft.

    In fact, I am not sure about the value of XBL in general, because it's competitors generally offer many of the same services at just as good quality (Netflix for example) but without an overall subscription required.

    Edit: For reference, the only "ad" I have on PSN is a uniquely European problem where my PS3 is convinced that I own sing star for some reason and so it remains stuck on my consoles interface just above my gigantic list of free PSN+ games. As far as I know, the PS4 is equally clean of adverts and I don't think has any oddities like the above.

    I think PSN is severely undercharging for what they offer so as to catch up to Microsoft. I'd argue it worked too well meaning they can't reasonably increase the cost or gate media apps behind it without a huge backlash. As such I believe that they will most likely start to add ads onto the PS4 more and more just like MS did with the 360 to make up the difference.

    Opty on
    syndalis
  • BotznoyBotznoy Registered User regular
    Kryhs wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Slightly relevant: in the city of Sao Paoulo, outdoor advertisement has been outlawed since 2006:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html
    We'd all be better off with substantially less advertising, and the advertising we do get should be a mutually beneficial, willing transaction, and not it being thrown into public spaces, or added on top of full priced products.

    Would we? A substantial loss of jobs and crippling loss of revenue streams for a variety of service seems hard to weigh against the nebulous benefits of not seeing advertisements. I feel like that statement needs to at least be examined instead of treated as axiomatic.

    I'm really, really tired of "but people would lose their jobs!" being the go-to excuse for a ton of the inaction in this world.

    When you talk about removing literally hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue from numerous businesses "people losing their jobs" is a pretty reasonable reaction

    IZF2byN.jpg

    Want to play co-op games? Feel free to hit me up!
    ElvenshaeDhalphir
  • BursarBursar Hee Noooo! Registered User regular
    My biggest problem with ads in games is intrusiveness.

    If an item makes sense in the game world, and people don't talk about it like they're being secretly filmed in the Truman Show:
    then I don't particularly have a problem with it. But too much "Look at this ad!" really irritates me.

    One situation that jumps to mind is Saint's Row 2.
    When I started playing it, all the billboards and signs were for in-game businesses, most of which were dirty jokes. You'd have ads for donut shops, the repair shops, different cars, etc. I began playing it again a year later, and all these ads had changed to Bing logos. Bing, Microsoft's feeble search engine. Not only is it never mentioned at all in the game, it has no purpose there, and, perhaps even more egregious, it was just the one image, stretched to fit every single one of the signs. Bing all over the place. Ugh.

    GNU Terry Pratchett
    3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324 | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Does Xbox live do more than the competition? PSN has been more than adequate and has an arguably better feature in the instant game collection. Additionally PSN does not have ads everywhere and whilst they sucked a few years ago in say, download speeds, they are easily at parity these days. When I got my PS3 in June of last year, I was actually quite surprised by how good the download speeds or similar were - which I remembered being utterly awful a few years ago. So I am not exactly sure what benefit these ads on XBL are providing to customers anymore, outside of their benefit to Microsoft.

    In fact, I am not sure about the value of XBL in general, because it's competitors generally offer many of the same services at just as good quality (Netflix for example) but without an overall subscription required.

    Edit: For reference, the only "ad" I have on PSN is a uniquely European problem where my PS3 is convinced that I own sing star for some reason and so it remains stuck on my consoles interface just above my gigantic list of free PSN+ games. As far as I know, the PS4 is equally clean of adverts and I don't think has any oddities like the above.

    I think PSN is severely undercharging for what they offer so as to catch up to Microsoft. I'd argue it worked too well meaning they can't reasonably increase the cost or gate media apps behind it without a huge backlash. As such I believe that they will most likely start to add ads onto the PS4 more and more just like MS did with the 360 to make up the difference.

    I think you grossly overestimate the costs involved in maintaining ps+ and xbl.

    Netflix hulu and amazon pay to get their apps on those consoles for example so microsoft already has a profit from these companies. EA and the like also pay a fee and usually host their online titkes themselves.
    They arent placing ads on the dashboard to make ends meet.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    AegeriSpoitLostNinjaArdent
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Opty wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Does Xbox live do more than the competition? PSN has been more than adequate and has an arguably better feature in the instant game collection. Additionally PSN does not have ads everywhere and whilst they sucked a few years ago in say, download speeds, they are easily at parity these days. When I got my PS3 in June of last year, I was actually quite surprised by how good the download speeds or similar were - which I remembered being utterly awful a few years ago. So I am not exactly sure what benefit these ads on XBL are providing to customers anymore, outside of their benefit to Microsoft.

    In fact, I am not sure about the value of XBL in general, because it's competitors generally offer many of the same services at just as good quality (Netflix for example) but without an overall subscription required.

    Edit: For reference, the only "ad" I have on PSN is a uniquely European problem where my PS3 is convinced that I own sing star for some reason and so it remains stuck on my consoles interface just above my gigantic list of free PSN+ games. As far as I know, the PS4 is equally clean of adverts and I don't think has any oddities like the above.

    I think PSN is severely undercharging for what they offer so as to catch up to Microsoft. I'd argue it worked too well meaning they can't reasonably increase the cost or gate media apps behind it without a huge backlash. As such I believe that they will most likely start to add ads onto the PS4 more and more just like MS did with the 360 to make up the difference.

    Actually you are wrong and should already know that. Sony happily stuck online multiplayer on PS4 behind a paywall with nary a peep in opposition, which I don't think anyone here would argue moving multiplayer from free to behind the subscription wasn't a huge change. It has in fact worked pretty well because a good chunk of PS4 owners are now subscribing to PSN+ and that is again, because PSN+ is a great value proposition with the free games, lack of ads and paying for multiplayer does feel "fair" - especially if you are a fan of non-shit match making and having good download speeds.

    Really, trying the "Schrodinger's DRM" argument but with ads is really not a convincing defence of Microsoft trying to force value by charging for basic apps that every other competitor makes free. Even if Sony did decide to include ads, these ads would still be in context of a better value service that still doesn't restrict basic functionality when the subscription isn't active. Additionally last I remember reading the Wii (yes, the Wii) was one of the most prominent consoles for household netflix use and has zero ads or requirement for a subscription fee. So Microsoft is trying to "force" value into XBL, while their competitors are actually giving people value for the money (or maybe even lack of it) they are paying to use similar services. This is why your argument falls flat on its face: Sony can and did get away with exactly what you were describing. They shoved something free behind the paywall and got zero opposition while they did it.

    Which is a demonstration of A) the position the companies are in with the public in many ways (Microsofts move to add political spots to its interfaces is going down like a rock coated in lead) and B) the amount of value that PSN+ was already giving means when they quietly assassinate something like multiplayer being free, nobody really bats an eyelid. Personally I would be immensely disappointed if PSN+ started having ads, because I think it's a major advantage over Microsoft and XBL, but ultimately PSN+ would still be good enough value to me that I would easily keep subscribing.

    Also I should point out that XBL has actually increased in price in 2010 and coincidentally since 2010 microsoft has dramatically increased the number of ads. Adverts were added to XBL before 2010, with an announcement of them in 2009. So adding ads definitely didn't change their plans for increasing the cost of the service a year later and then they have subsequently adding more over time. I personally don't believe ads on XBL gives me more value, a better service or anything else - not since I actually looked at what the competition offered me. Now even though I'm likely to get an Xbone soon (well, more correctly my wife is), there is very little reason for me to want to pay two subscriptions (XBL and PSN) because one offers me substantially more bang for my money than the other. PSN as I mentioned is now very comparable (to my surprise) in download speeds and reliability, because I do remember when it was absolutely completely dreadful.

    But PSN didn't make itself non-dreadful my shoving ads down my throat: They made it non-dreadful by giving me a tremendous amount of value and genuinely sorting their shit out. While Nintendo's infrastructure for literally anything online is a joke, at the very least they aren't trying to charge people for it and services like Netflix certainly function absolutely fine for what it is (because a lot of people use the Wii for it remember).

    XBL ads are ridiculous as it is and the service is definitely lagging behind its main competition, trying to wave this off with "But the other guy might be potentially be as entirely evil as well at some nebulous point in future!" is honestly not cutting it. It's the same nonsense excuse people tried to use for the Xbox One DRM last year and it's not going to fly with this argument either. I'm not saying it's not something Sony might very well do in future, but until they actually announce some kind of plan to do so it's worthless trying to speculate about how obnoxious they would do something in comparison, when they've given no indication they are intending on doing that thing. We know in the context of this thread exactly what Microsoft are doing with ads and are criticising them for what they are actually doing.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    LostNinjaViskodSpoit
Sign In or Register to comment.