Results tagged “ea” from Birmingham Mail - Technobabble

I got a press release through the other day from IGA Worldwide "the leading independent in-game advertising network".

They've just signed a deal with EA, or Electronic Arts, to provide all their plugging for the Playstation 3.

According to the bumph the contract means the 13 million PS3 owners will now be bombarded with in-game advertising.

The release says: "Sony recently opened its PS3(TM) platform to allow brands to advertise dynamically within games played on the popular video game console."

Well that was nice of Sony wasn't it? (I particularly like the TM thrown in like a breeze block emphasizing the product).

I enjoyed the explanation of why gamers would actually benefit from the experience: "The advertisements are integrated within the gaming environment in order to deliver a seamless and more authentic game environment."

Well, I suppose they're right - being bombarded with product placement is certainly part of normal everyday life.

I remember when the only ads in games were spoof ones - often in something like Duke Nukem there'd be pics of naked women advertising something - god knows what - it wasn't big, it wasn't clever, but at least it was (slightly) funny (if you were an adolescent male that is).

Will this 'advance' keep prices down for PS3 gamers (normal release price £49.99) - errr, no.

And EA, for god's sake. They are hardly famous for insisting on finished products being released.

Who can forget Battlefield 2 on PC - still getting massive bug fix patches YEARS after its release.

Elizabeth Harz, EA's Senior Vice President said: "EA is committed to providing both great entertainment experiences for consumers and effective advertising solutions for marketers."

It's come to something when a games publisher says it's 'committed' to a concept like 'creating effective advertising solutions'.

I await the first in-game ad break.

Adverts - coming to a game near you!

Big developers Bioware and EA have backed down after a huge online outcry over plans to dramatically ramp up their copywrite protection on two new releases.

Both Mass Effect and Spore were set to use SecuROM's software which forces the user to authenticate their copy of the game every ten days online.

The plans had caused something of a sensation on the internet, with fans complaining it was a step too far.

First Bioware decided to drop the plans in favour of the normal authenticate on installation, then EA followed suit.

The spectacular reverse ferret left both publishers with egg on their faces - but were they really in the wrong?

There's no doubt that software piracy is a big problem on the PC - more so than other platforms. Games these days have development periods running to years and cost millions of pounds to create.

Is it really so unreasonable for companies to protect their intellectual property?

I think on balance this one probably went a bit far - and ran the risk of the consumer being treated like a criminal - something which seems to be happening more and more.

I, for one, find it quite annoying when a program tells me on installation "your authentication code 'appears' to be correct". APPEARS!!! Thanks guys, after I've lashed out on your new product.

Plus with the SecuROM system there's the issue of needing to be online to authenticate - many people have a computer for games which they don't use for the internet for performance reasons.

Also, what happens if you decide you fancy a game two years after release? Will the authentication servers still be working?

And there's the issue of servers being overwhelmed, leading to waits to get on an play.

All in all I don't think it was a good idea - but let's face it - we're only going to get more and more of this kind of thing as developers perfectly reasonably try to beat the pirates.