Widescreen Gaming Forum

Sorry but I still don't agree. If you don't like my TV comparison because of the hardware ownership, then I'll give you another one, DVDs. Between the ads that run before the film (and are mandatory on some discs) and the product placement in the film itself, there are marketing attempts going on within a movie disc that you have purchased, being played on your DVD player and being broadcast through your television. The only difference is there's no dynamic download factor, so the bandwidth issue doesn't really apply, but it's still your hardware right? And don't movies cost as much as they ever have? You should get a discount since you have to watch their advertising!

Or, not. I have no idea how much advertising revenue any of these companies get for ads placed in their media, but I would be very surprised if it added up to more than $.50 per unit in contribution margin. I don't mean to stand up for the big guys, but honestly, PC games have been priced at $50 for as long as I can remember. Based on what I know of economics and the trends in the industry, I think production costs have to be rising. That means margins are falling. I think they're trying to figure out how they can continue to make their products profitable in that environment.

And for me the question on the bottom line is does it really make that much of a difference to your gameplay experience? How does the dynamic ad server work? Is it pinging all the time? Or does it download dynamic content at the beginning of a play session? From the standpoint of bandwidth efficiency for EA, I would guess the latter. What does that do to your server lag? My guess is zero. But I could be wrong about these things... I'm just saying the advertising in and of itself isn't so egregious. Unless it starts causing any performance degradation, I see it as a non-issue.

Actually the whole thing is a non-issue since we should be boycotting EA's buggy spyware-laden non-widescreen games anyway.

I would be very surprised if it added up to more than $.50 per unit in contribution margin.

I think they're trying to figure out how they can continue to make their products profitable in that environment.

And for me the question on the bottom line is does it really make that much of a difference to your gameplay experience?

I'm just saying the advertising in and of itself isn't so egregious. Unless it starts causing any performance degradation, I see it as a non-issue.

Well said.

Before I agree with Blueeye, I think EA have gone about the ingame advertising in a poor way, and they have not delivered any benefits from the advertising that the player will have to endure.

That said I think that Ingame Advertising is not a good enough reason in itself to crack the heebyjeebies; the poo-poos; the nar nars; the hissy fits; the dirty nappies; or a toozy. If ingame advertising gives the game developers/makers/creaters more of an income stream then that means they have potentially more room to create a better game. (yay for us)

I will keep my anger directed at EA's methods of introducing the ingame advertising, not because the have introducted it.

_________________
moboP8P67-M-PRO-V3 cpuI5-2500K-3.3GHZ ramOCZ8GB gpu260GTX hddOCZ-VERTEX II-SSD psuNEOHE550W hudBENQ20"

In the UK, at least, Cable and Satellite are options.

Terrestrial TV, on the other hand, has two modes: There is the mode of the BBC, which is 'charge you a yearly fee and have ad free programs' (note, however, that there are ads between the programs, but not inside them...) and there are the 'free' channels like ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. These do not get any of the yearly fee that the BBC receives (which is included in your TV license) and so have to survive off of advertising revenue.

So, what point am I trying to make?

IGA (Ingame Advertising) has started off on the wrong foot. OK, so you're always going to get the hardcore online BF enthusiasts (read: fanboys) who no matter what EA/Dice put them through will buy and play it... but for most people, it should have begun in the fashion: buy the game for $50, don't get ads... download the game for free, get IGA. It wouldn't have even been that difficult to implement: say you use texture packs... have the ads in the loading screens - on the DVD version, there is the ad free texture pack. On the download, the only difference is the 'loading level' texture pack that instead of having some inspiring pic to get you pumped for the level, has a 'Buy Coke; It Dissolves Your Teeth!' ad there instead. Or whatever.

That, I think, would be more acceptible than the current method, which is: 'buy the game for $50, then have IGA.'

I realise that EA have gone for the business model that gets them the most money, and to be honest, given the number of people out there who have absolutely no knowledge about their PC in the first place - let alone the sort of info that can get sent down your net connection - they'll still do OK. Even if every tech-savvy person out there boycotts it.

While I see this as the thin end of the wedge, right now I don't really care. I had no intention of buying BF2142, and I still have no intention to do so. If EA start doing this to every game they release, or other publishers start, then I will get rather narked.

You might say that I should start campaigning against it now... you might not. I see little point in starting a witchhunt over something that may flop anyway. I was having a conversation with a collegue today about BF2142/BF2. He expressed an interest in 2142. I said he should look and see what sort of problems it has first. A few hours later, he'd looked, and come to the conclusion that he didn't like the sound of IGA (he isn't all that tech-savvy, for anyone who cares) and also didn't like the fact that BF2142 seemed to have pretty much every bug that BF2 has. He then commented that he went out and bought all the various addons for BF2, and yet very few people played them... they all stuck to BF2. So as far as I could determine, in his opinion, the addons for BF2 flopped. What is the point in an online shooter that no one plays? Anyway. EA's solution for those who don't like IGA is a hoot: don't play on an internet-enabled PC. Do what? Don't play a game designed for online play on a PC with a net connection. Yep. Great advice. :lol:

You don't want this 'spyware' on your PC? Don't buy that game. Gee, that was tough, wasn't it? :roll:

...

I just realised how much of a rant this post is. Hn. :P

all the more reasons to go console :roll:

all the more reasons to go console :roll:

That's never stopped EA from screwing people before :P.

all the more reasons to go console :roll:

EA is still evil on cponsoles. Xblxo Live users still have to deal with the dreaded "EA Servers." plus alot of games have issues/suck "NBA Liive 2007 for example."

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=33&threadid=1936030&STARTPAGE=1

http://www.aggravatedgamers.com/wordpress/2006/10/31/ea-breaks-bf2142again/

http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?sls=2&tstart=0&threadID=141866

EA strikes again. It's too risky buying thier games these days.

_________________
moboP8P67-M-PRO-V3 cpuI5-2500K-3.3GHZ ramOCZ8GB gpu260GTX hddOCZ-VERTEX II-SSD psuNEOHE550W hudBENQ20"

http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=24699

They're not going anywhere fast and it just shows, noone is really put off by themmm ... :shock:

Especially us silly Europeans apparently! tsk!

_________________
Formerly eZ`

Follow me on twitter: @theg00seberry and find me on Steam