digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

California legislator takes on in-game ads

arstechnica.com — California Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) is thinking of proposing a bill into the state legislature to prevent in-game ads and spyware from being installed on user's computers, even if the player gives consent during the installation process.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Well, EA has to pay for its advertising campaign *somehow.*

    Wait a minute...
    • Atom, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I dont know how far shes really going to take this but dugg for the fact that SOMEONE is at least TRYING something.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23Dugg for the fact that someone is trying to restrict freedom of speech? Digg is full of a bunch of hypocrites. They support freedom of speech when they agree with what is being said, but they have no problem when speech they don't agree with is being restricted. The developers make the game, the publishers pay for it, and they try to make some money off of advertisers. THEY DON'T HAVE TO SELL THEIR GAME TO YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEIR GAME. THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL FOR GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND REGULATE CONSENTUAL ACTIVITY.
    • elf586, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@blapierre
      i agree with you about the freedom of speech, for the ads in the game, HOWEVER spyware that is bundled with a game that you MUST install to install the game i dont agree with...
      unfortunatly...it appears they are being combined.....so i dont think this will go vary far...
    • unununium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11There is also the issue that EA didn't include a warning outside the box that it contained ads. There is a slip of paper inside the box that informs you that the game you've just paid full price for is advertising supported.
      In addition, many stores won't allow you to return a game once it's been opened.
    • Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7"i agree with you about the freedom of speech, for the ads in the game, HOWEVER spyware that is bundled with a game that you MUST install to install the game i dont agree with..."

      Then don't install it.

      "There is also the issue that EA didn't include a warning outside the box that it contained ads."

      I'd like to see that on other products: "Warning: This magazine has advertisements!"
    • benjaminrayburn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Two issues:

      1. When EA says they are going to track your movements in the game and sell that data as they do with their In Game Adverting system then they are out of line and we should be very concerned.

      2. When the government says they intend to legislate what can be included in a game, then they are out of line and we should be very concerned.

      Non-tracking ads could be unobtrusive and even enhance realism as in the oft cited racing game, but more likely they will be pushed too far and be an annoyance. Anyone who has ever gone to a favorite website only to have some stinking dancing flash ad obscuring the text will understand. The temptation is too great for publishers: “if we could just get an additional $0.0005 per game!” That doesn't mean they don't have a right to include them.

      In Game Tracking for profit – “spyware”. Totally unacceptable.
    • unununium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aeiri: I'd like to see that on other products: "Warning: This magazine has advertisements!"
      Magazines aren't a form of entertainment, they are a form of information. Advertisements fit into this context because they are also a form of information: they allow product-makers to pay money to inform you of their product.
      Games are a completely different medium from magazines and to attempt to draw a connection is totally ridiculous.

      Perhaps I should be more clear. There was no advance warning on the outside of the box that the game contained extra software developed by a subcontractor that monitors my in-game activities.
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3free speech!???

      we arent talking about game makers right to put in game advertising into their products. we are talking about game makers puting SPYWARE into their *****, HELLO EA

      good science, ***** idiots. read more than just the title of the story (wich is ***** innacurate, and marked as such).
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2

      Hold on a sec, "Freedom of Speech" for corporations/entities/govt?!

      Freedom of speech is the equal power of the individual American so he has a case against entity or govt.

      If EA and the rest of these ***** companies branding their dregs into your cerebral unannounced would listen to the community, they would realize that the majority of game players do NOT WANT THIS CRAP IMPLEMENTED INTO THE GAMES.

      Freedom of Speech for corporate or govt special interest? I think not. Any third grade history class could tell you that. You must work for some of these people.
    • dangermen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What drives me nuts is there there isn't even a friggin choice. EA... offer me a version of the game that costs more so I don't have to look at stupid ads. I am sick of EVERYTHING being some commercial vehicle. It's the reason I adblock, tivo, or excuse my use of a product. I REFUSE to buy BF2142 until there is some other choice about the friggin ads. Legislation while it sucks could at the least say.... you must offer an ad free version that costs more and NO SPY WARE! There is NEVER a valid excuse for spy ware.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Games should cost less if they have ads in them. Games cost more now than they did when there were no ads (well, for Xbox 360 anyway). I've always felt this way with movies as well. I used to pay less to see a movie with no commercials (other than the previews). Now if I go to the movie theatre, I pay an insane amount for a ticket, insane prices for refreshments and snacks, and have to endure advertising before the movie, and product placement throughout the movie itself.

      *****. Money from advertisers should mean that I have to pay less.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Digg is full of a bunch of hypocrites. They support freedom of speech when they agree with what is being said, but they have no problem when speech they don't agree with is being restricted. The developers make the game, the publishers pay for it, and they try to make some money off of advertisers."

      They aren't "expressing an opinion" by including in-game ads and mandatory spyware. They're "shafting the customer".
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By the way, people are also critical of unskippable ads in DVDs and DVR recordings. We have a right to fight against annoyances in products we've paid for.
  • Titan486, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7politician... video games...

    /mind raped
  • jban4US, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5In game ads make a lot of games more realistic. The banners on the sides of the stadium in a football, baseball, tennis, soccer, etc. games look much less tacky and more realistic when they are for name brands rather than the game publishers stupid logo. Same thing with billboards in racing games.
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19so, i hate them in real life. why would i want to see them i my video games, too?
    • Spire3660, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The in game adverts in Battlefield 2142 are hardly realistic. Advertising for an Intel Core Duo 2 on a battlefield 136 years into the future is pretty lame. Sports banners, racing banners etc. I have no issue with, but those billboards in BF 2142 are GLARINGLY obvious and anachronistic.
    • Suits, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4You must work in advertising for games. All your kind who like/want and are trying to make a profit from advertising in games. Be gone. Wanting to bring realism? Try better video game engines and plots. California, rock on.
    • unununium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Games aren't meant to reinforce reality, but to help you escape from it.
    • FreakTrap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Games aren't meant to reinforce reality, but to help you escape from it."

      Not sure why, but when I am playing a racing game, I would much rather see Porches, Mustangs, and Eclipses [as in the Need for Speed games] rather than some made up car make and models [as seen in Ridge Racer]...

      Given the above, it should be obvious that the idea that putting realistic elements of life into video games diminishes the quality of the games is flawed.

      As for what brands should be advertised:
      Intel ads are ***** lame; however, Castrol GTX, Autozone and Burger-King ads in NFS Carbon were prefect.
  • kprobbins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1i think it's a good thing. a very good thing. it takes a village...
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9...to pay for Larry Probst's next vacation to Aruba with his administrative assistant.
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Here's the thing. In quite a few games (sports, racing, more or less any game based in reality) I really don't mind ads.

    But, if they're going to put ads in games, they should make the games cheaper. If I could get the next Burnout game for $20 and have to deal with some in-game ads, I would jump at it in a second

    On the other hand, if they're going to put tons of ads in a game and still charge me $60 for it, I'm going to fight it ever chance I get
    • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You could "fight it" by not buying the game. Wow that was simple. And you didn't even need to get a law passed to force everyone around you to do the same. What's wrong with people?
  • kasted, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3San Diego woo woo!
    • jolionessness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hell ya!!!
    • strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Great - You ***** elected an ignorant jackass to represent you. But don't let that stop you from your little circle jerk.
  • drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This woman must have kids that are diggers ;-)
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or she could actually be a gamer! Zomg!
      ...hey, it could happen. Right?
  • Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Isn't there something called "freedom of speech" and "Individual rights"? If I want to agree to ads, let me!

    If a game is made with more money to make it (from ads) , it will be better.

    • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If a game is made with more money to make it, it will be better."

      Huuuuuwhat?
    • Atom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If i was stupid more, i undrstand maybe you!
  • cannibal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Go San Diego!! I live in San Diego, amazing to see something game related from here. I agree with Lumiras, lower the price if it has ads, but do not have ads on 60 buck games.
  • Ludnix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Although I personally don't like in-game advertising, I don't think it should be illegal. I think the developers should have the option for real advertising if they chose to do so.

    If I were a developer I would personally try and do fake ads that are comical such as in the GTA series.
    • linuxps2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5personally im all for in-game advertising if it reduces the costs of games, but without reducing the costs its pretty much useless, and in which case i hate them, but they shouldn't be illegal
    • ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2uh--there already IS in-game advertising. it doesn't reduce the cost of games.

      did you read the article?
    • manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ludnix makes an excellent point. The ads in GTA (billboards and even radio) are creative parodies of real ads that took some time and effort to invent. It would be a huge loss to the game if they had real ads instead. This is whats really at stake here.
  • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree that spy ware should be banned, however I do not see how they can prevent in game ads. I would suggest and hope that in the even t of in game ads the price for the consumer would drop somewhere near $0, just as we would expect for television, and online sites such as digg.
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is this yet another reaction by lawmakers to legislate our video games? Thanks a lot.

    Now, I don't like in-game ads, but letting Congress legislate by Playstation sets a dangerous precedent: If they can illegalize in-game ads, what other parts of video games will they try to make unlawful?

    I have a better solution for getting rid of in-game ads: the market. If consumers really don't want to see ads, they can vote with their wallets. Let the free market decide; giving Congress the shoe-in to an industry that shouldn't be regulated is a bad idea.
    • HesNikke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1show me a professional football game (read NFL) that doesn't make me sit through sprint(?) ads before every kickoff - on the wii no less, and i'll bring my $60. *glowers at EA*
  • AdamalNZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it depends on if it could be a relevent theme or not.

    Say if its something like GTA, which is often set in this day and age, and you have like a Coke or Pepsi billboard on one of the billboards in the game, I don't see a problem with that. If its an advertisment that say pauses the game, pops up and plays, then goes away, then thats intrusive and disrupts the game. Or if you're playing some kind of online game like World of Warcraft and it has Coke or Pepsi billboards around the place. Thats rather blatent.

    Anything that involves spyware or adware should be illegal. As an IT support person, I despise it.
    • HesNikke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2have you played maddon on the wii? it stops and makes you look at some sprint ad for 45 seconds (maybe not that long) before every freaking kickoff. WTF?! and to top it off, i paid $8 bucks MORE for maddon than any of my other, ad free, wii games.
  • RobRobRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The goverment has no right to control video games. They're a form of communication. Its like saying a comic book or a magazine can't have ads in it. Videogames are today's media, like books were in the past. Just because its a new technology doesn't all of a sudden give the goverment the right to regulate speech and communications.

    Besides, advertising-supported games could be a great way for small game creators who don't have the resources to get on the shelf at wal-mart to enter the market.

  • drakino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not sure how I feel about this one. It would prevent EA from being asses and releasing a Battlefield 2 mod at full price with ads again (Battlefield 2142), but it could harm some things that ad revenue has actually helped. Take Planetside for example. The developers added ads to it to help justify continuing development of it, even when subscriber numbers were dropping. And for a while now, you can play the game for free.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Spyware? Good idea, obviously. But legislation to ban in-game advertisement? I'm not a fan of in-game advertising myself, but am I the only one to spot the stupidity of that idea? Legit business strategies are not something to be 'legislating'. Ban TV and internet advertising while you're at it Ms. Saldana.
  • Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Where do you stop. Sheesh people. If you don't want ads in your game don't buy the game. What is the difference between blood and gore (that most people here throw a hissy fit when the government tries to ban it) and advertising?

    And it would never stand anyway, freedom of speech and all. Why is video games different than films (placements)? Or Application software? Qwiken has many advertisements in it.
    How about DVDs. What is the difference between advertisements in video games and previews in on a DVD?

    Since you don't have to buy it to survive don't legislate it to death.
  • PatrickX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Obviously nobody likes seeing ads in their games, but to make it illegal is just ridiculous. Seriously, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. How about you just don't buy a game if it has in-game advertising? If the game isn't good enough that it is worth it to play even though it has in-game advertising, then people won't play it. You have no right to whine about something you aren't forced to buy in a market where there isn't a monopoly. Stop trying to restrict other people's freedom of choice...
  • bogmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If a game has in-game ads, then it should be significantly cheaper than the rest.

    There's this whole advertisement BS that's ingrained in our culture that we're forced to deal with with no just compensation whatsoever.

    A popular one is commercials on cable networks. We already pay for cable, so why the hell are we forced to watch commercials? If you're gonna show commercials on comedy central, adult swim, G4, whatever else you watch, then ... don't charge us.
  • dragstarking, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0It's gone too far. Now when I make love to my wife her breasts light up "vote republican". Can I turn this feature off. I gave her a virus scan and it was clear.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You probably inserted the wrong brand of Trojan.
    • dragstarking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think you are right, 4 small humans have come out of her naughty bits and tried to communicate with me.
  • ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1advertisements are not protected under the first amendment.
    advertisements are not "free speech".
    look it up.

    ***** "i want my rights! rights! waaah!" Americans. what a one-dimensional culture you have. you think, but not very much. you protest, but only when it's convenient.
    • unununium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The right for video game developers and publishers (the content creators) to put anything they want into the game (including advertisements) is protected under free speech.
    • MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Commercial speech is protected under the first amendment, just not as much as non-commercial speech.
  • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The government does have no right to restrict advertising, but the government does have a right and SHOULD restrict spyware and our in-game movements, since spyware is not speech, it's ***** spying on people.

    "Vote with your wallet." doesn't have much weight against "Hey you've been drooling over screenshots of this game for like what over a year maybe a year and a half now, you've spent days on forums in the past year talking about it, it's so cool with sexy graphics, you've already spent $60 plus tax to get a copy of it, what's that, you opened the box, you can't take it back to the store because they won't take it now, you . . you could, disagree to the EULA and not let us install our ***** spyware (oh by the way which we installed when you popped in the CD via autorun), but you're just one fish in a sea of millions of mindless retards who already also spent $60 on the game who don't have the slightest ***** idea of what privacy is even supposed to be, and if they did they wouldn't give a ***** because they are mindless sheep ha ha ha ha, so enjoy your wallet $60 emptier than before while you don't play our game you nearly jizzed yourself on the way home holding the box, all of your friends are in the Ventrilo and TeamSpeak servers having spazz attacks over the game without you, are you really really going to let the pink piece of paper change your mind?

    PS: We know what you do in your bedroom at night"

    There is one exception where tracking a player's movements is absolutely acceptable and should be mandatory, and that is in tournaments such as CAL CPL TWL etc for anti-cheat.
  • riplikethat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am not digging this. ADS (not spyware) are a good thing for games who want to be freeware yet earn money with advertising (no, EA & UBI doesn't need this strategy). If there is a law against this ad system, they should damn well make it clear that companies like EA and UBI will be the one's who will not be allowed to abuse this advertising method.

    Actually, I am digging this up as well.
  • Universe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although I don't like adware or in-game ads, I HATE politicians trying to regulate gaming all the time. Let people vote with their wallets, and stay out of my games!
  • ComFyKeyKeY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i love how were in the middle of a war and people care about in game ads and waste time passing stuff thats probley going to get shot down. lol i have 2142 and i could give to F*&^King $H|ts about in game ads
  • hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ATTN: Government

    Hands off our video games.

    Thank you.
  • superfly007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The government absolutely should stop these companies from installing spyware on your computer. That's a no-brainer.

    The ads, that's a little tougher.

    The obvious:

    1. Nobody wants ads in a game that they don't belong in.
    2. Nobody wants to pay full price for a game riddled with ads.

    We don't need legislation to fix this. We need companies like EA to stop being greedy scumbags. We need companies like EA to deliver these ad infested games for a reduced cost. The only way this will happen is if we stop buying this garbage.

    But guess what, not enough people will. Ads are here to stay, and they will be shoved down our throats for the same price of games we have now. Nothing will get better, only worse.

    Gee, maybe we do need legislation to stop in game advertising after all :p

  • pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another ***** legislation by a useless politician. These people need to come up with better ways of giving themselves work.
  • MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm all for keeping spyware out of games. It should be illegal unless it is painfully clear the consumer agrees to install it.

    That said, EA does not install spyware. They track ad impressions and target ads based on your IP, just like any other online advertiser. The only difference is they also track how long you looked at the ad.

    There are plenty of reasons to hate EA. Spyware is not one of those reasons.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.