So just some interesting stories I noticed over the past few days that
I thought might spark some discussion here. Rather than flood the
newsgroup, I decided to compile them into a single post. Let me know
what you think.

* "Being Acquired Is A Stepping Stone To Having Your Studio Shut Down'
https://www.vg247.com/video-game-ceo-acquisition-tango-gameworks-microsoft-sony

It's almost a meme that any developer acquired by a
larger publisher is fated to be shut down in the near
future. It doesn't /always/ happen... but surviving
studios are the exceptions rather than the rule. So why
do studios keep selling themselves off? Sure, the PR
hacks tell us it's all about growing the business,
providing new opportunities to expand into bigger
markets... but do the developers really believe that?
Turns out, no. They're just as aware that the sale is
just the start of a long countdown towards their studio
eventually being shuttered. It's never for the good of
the games, the studio, or the gamers. It's all about
somebody at the top getting more money now... even if
long-term it's going to kill the business.

* EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo

Really, does anything need be said about this topic
beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
"Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
interested in pushing even more into its products.
And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?

* Publishers Not Devs Are Pushing AI Dreams
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/former-dragon-age-lead-writer-david-gaider-pours-scorn-on-eas-ai-dreams-what-they-took-as-excitement-was-really-a-veiled-wail-of-despair/

There have been a number of articles about how
developers are excited about all the new AI tools
being made available to them, and how they will
revolutionize game development, and oh my oh my
this is the bestest thing to ever happen to gaming
since the creation of the 3D accelerator board. But
not so, says David Gaider (former writer of Dragon
Age games). It's not the developers who are all
that excited about these tools; it's the publishers
who look at them with barely disguised glee at how
AI can reduce the bottom line. Why pay artists to
painstakingly create new textures and models, or
hand-craft detailed maps, or write music or dialogue,
when you can just get an AI LLM to churn it out
for you.

"They want you to believe the devs under
them are super stoked to work generative AI into
their processes," [says] Gaider, "but I assure you
what they took as excitement was really a veiled
wail of despair not unlike the time that team was
informed of their new 'really cool' live service
mandate." That's not to say AI tools have no
use in game development, but the excitement about
their utility is pushed more by the bean counters
than the artists who actually create the game.
And letting the money-men dictate how a game
should be created rarely results in a good game.

Huh... in retrospect, all three stories are pretty depressing takes on
the game industry. Maybe I should have found something a bit more
uplifting. Oh well, maybe next time.

On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>
> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
> interested in pushing even more into its products.
> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?

I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
beyond you're advertising beer to children.

This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
you, well you need to watch an advert for that.

One thing I will say is at least EA are being honest and saying this is
all for them and not trying to spin it into it's good for gamers*

*Has the gaming industry really got so bad that I think it's a positive
that at least they aren't lying about their reasons?

On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>
>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>
>I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>beyond you're advertising beer to children.

Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
featured the Budweiser logo.

>This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>you, well you need to watch an advert for that.

There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*

Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
often and obviously done in movies already).

The inclusion of advertising just makes for worse games overall.

* there is Mountain Dew, though.

On 5/12/2024 9:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * there is Mountain Dew, though.

Just don't ask how its made....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>
>>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>>
>> I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>> it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>> never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>> beyond you're advertising beer to children.
>
> Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
> because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
> featured the Budweiser logo.
>
>> This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>> something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>> you, well you need to watch an advert for that.
>
> There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
> is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
> far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*
>
> Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
> is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
> mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
> topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
> product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
> manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
> anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
> entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
> often and obviously done in movies already).
>
> The inclusion of advertising just makes for worse games overall.
>

I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.

The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
(although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
Fiat Punto would be a no, no.

JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>>
>>>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>>>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>>>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>>>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>>>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>>>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>>>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>>>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>>>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>>>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>>>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>>>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>>>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>>>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>>>
>>> I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>>> it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>>> never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>>> beyond you're advertising beer to children.
>>
>> Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
>> because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
>> featured the Budweiser logo.
>>
>>> This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>>> something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>>> you, well you need to watch an advert for that.
>>
>> There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
>> is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
>> far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*
>>
>> Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
>> is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
>> mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
>> topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
>> product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
>> manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
>> anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
>> entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
>> often and obviously done in movies already).
>>
>> The inclusion of advertising just makes for worse games overall.
>>
>
>I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
>advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
>practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
>be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
>crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.
>
>The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
>is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
>accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
>films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
>a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
>make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
>that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
>(although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
>is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
>Fiat Punto would be a no, no.

Already been done in one of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films: Tomorrow
Never Dies.

Where he and Michelle Yeoh's char escaped on the BMW motorcycle - BMW
paid for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_R1200C

And then you have Die Another Day with the extended fight between Bond's
Aston Martin and the bad guy's Jaguar ... on Ice!

Xocyll

On 5/12/2024 9:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>
>>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>>
>> I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>> it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>> never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>> beyond you're advertising beer to children.
>
> Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
> because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
> featured the Budweiser logo.
>
>> This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>> something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>> you, well you need to watch an advert for that.
>
> There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
> is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
> far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*

Advertising for some of the herb Gandalf's always smoking :/

Anyone remember Bawls in Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel? What am I
asking, of course no one remembers that, I'm probably the only person
who's played that one, and no I don't mean tactics. No Nuka Cola for
that Fallout. Bawls doesn't even exist anymore.

> Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
> is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
> mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
> topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
> product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
> manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
> anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
> entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
> often and obviously done in movies already).
>

That's the reason you rarely see it in any shows.

> The inclusion of advertising just makes for worse games overall.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:51 this Monday (GMT):
> On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>>
>>>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>>>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>>>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>>>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>>>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>>>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>>>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>>>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>>>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>>>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>>>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>>>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>>>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>>>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>>>
>>> I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>>> it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>>> never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>>> beyond you're advertising beer to children.
>>
>> Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
>> because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
>> featured the Budweiser logo.
>>
>>> This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>>> something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>>> you, well you need to watch an advert for that.
>>
>> There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
>> is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
>> far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*
>>
>> Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
>> is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
>> mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
>> topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
>> product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
>> manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
>> anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
>> entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
>> often and obviously done in movies already).
>>
>> The inclusion of advertising just makes for worse games overall.
>>
>
> I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
> advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
> practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
> be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
> crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.
>
> The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
> is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
> accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
> films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
> a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
> make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
> that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
> (although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
> is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
> Fiat Punto would be a no, no.

Or Sonic wearing SOAP shoes in SA2?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Am 11.05.24 um 19:37 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> Huh... in retrospect, all three stories are pretty depressing takes on
> the game industry. Maybe I should have found something a bit more
> uplifting. Oh well, maybe next time.
There are rumours that Red Dead Redemption 1 finally will make it to the PC:

https://twitter.com/TezFunz2/status/1790031522315026508

On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:51 this Monday (GMT):
>> On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>> I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
>> advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
>> practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
>> be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
>> crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.
>>
>> The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
>> is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
>> accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
>> films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
>> a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
>> make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
>> that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
>> (although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
>> is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
>> Fiat Punto would be a no, no.
>
>
>Or Sonic wearing SOAP shoes in SA2?

I can actually live with that sort of stuff. But I hate it when the
pacing of the movie is interupted to show off the advertised goods.
It's not always obvious that is what is happening, but once you start
noticing it, it becomes extremely obtrusive.

E.g., the heroes run out of the building and get into their waiting
car. The camera pans in front of the car, focusing lovingly for a half
second on the automaker's logo on the hood, before moving on to the
action.

Or:

Hero pulls a can of soda from the fridge, and the label is facing
outwards (and if he puts it down on the table, it is between him and
the camera so you can't miss it).

Apparently, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was one of the first movies to use
product-placement in this way, but both Kubrick and the advertisers
were so embarassed by the concept that they worked hard not to make it
obvious. Would that modern producers had such concerns. I've no trust
Electronic Arts would.

On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:23:23 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 5/12/2024 9:04 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>>
>>>> Really, does anything need be said about this topic
>>>> beyond its title? Not that advertising in games are
>>>> new (the article points out that even in 1978, the
>>>> text-adventure "Adventureland" was published with
>>>> an advert baked into its gameplay, and arcade favorite
>>>> "Tapper" originally was sponsored by - and featured
>>>> the logo of - Budweiser. But EA has always been
>>>> bullish on adverts in games, and apparently its
>>>> interested in pushing even more into its products.
>>>> And not just baked-in adverts, but dynamic, rotating
>>>> advertising campaigns too. Of course, EA is promising
>>>> a 'thoughtful implementation'; I'm sure they've no
>>>> desire to turn PC and console gaming into a less-portable
>>>> version of the mobile-gaming scene, right?
>>>
>>> I don't have a intrinsic problem with advertising in games as long as
>>> it's more of the product placement type that you get in TV/films so I've
>>> never played Tapper but Budweiser being involved doesn't bother me, well
>>> beyond you're advertising beer to children.
>>
>> Later versions of Tapper changed the Budweiser branding to root-beer
>> because of this. It was only the earliest editions of the game that
>> featured the Budweiser logo.
>>
>>> This being EA though, you know it won't be just that but instead
>>> something that is far more intrusive. Oh you want to reload your gun do
>>> you, well you need to watch an advert for that.
>>
>> There are other problems with advertising though. One, for instance,
>> is that it makes it far less likely for games to be set in fantasy or
>> far-future settings. After all, there's no Coca Cola in Mordor!*
>
>Advertising for some of the herb Gandalf's always smoking :/
>
>Anyone remember Bawls in Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel? What am I
>asking, of course no one remembers that, I'm probably the only person
>who's played that one, and no I don't mean tactics. No Nuka Cola for
>that Fallout. Bawls doesn't even exist anymore.

That one passed over me, if only because I didn't (and still don't)
have any idea what the fuck bawls is. I guess I just assumed it was
some made-up whatever-it-was.

The example that sticks out most prominently in my mind is the
original "Alan Wake". They were very obviously Energizer-brand cells
(complete with packaging). Verizon was also a sponsor

"Splinter Cell" also had some fairly obvious product placement,
although I can't really remember what they were for (a cell phone,
maybe?)

>> Another problem is that keeping the advertisers happy means that there
>> is increasing editorializing made for reasons other than story or game
>> mechanics. This isn't just in regards to avoiding controversial
>> topics, but also altering how the game presents the advertised
>> product. We already see stuff like this in racing games (where car
>> manufacturers often object to their licensed vehicles being shown in
>> anything but pristine conditions, so damage modelling is often removed
>> entirely). Or demanding long lingering shots of the product (as it too
>> often and obviously done in movies already).

>That's the reason you rarely see it in any shows.

What are you talking about; it's in A LOT of TV shows. Product
placement is all over television. It's one of the reasons I can't
watch it anymore. Example: every computer is a Mac, unless it's used
by a bad guy (then it's a generic PC)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 20:46:11 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 11.05.24 um 19:37 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Huh... in retrospect, all three stories are pretty depressing takes on
>> the game industry. Maybe I should have found something a bit more
>> uplifting. Oh well, maybe next time.
>There are rumours that Red Dead Redemption 1 finally will make it to the PC:
>
>https://twitter.com/TezFunz2/status/1790031522315026508
>

While that would be welcome, I'll believe it when I see it.

Not only does Rockstar treat the PC like its red-headed stepchild, but
the company seems to have only marginal interest in anything that
can't be turned into a live-service model.

In the meantime, the game works well enough on my PS3 (or was it the
Xbox360? I forget which platform I have it for)

Werner P. <werpu@gmx.at> wrote at 18:46 this Monday (GMT):
> Am 11.05.24 um 19:37 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Huh... in retrospect, all three stories are pretty depressing takes on
>> the game industry. Maybe I should have found something a bit more
>> uplifting. Oh well, maybe next time.
> There are rumours that Red Dead Redemption 1 finally will make it to the PC:
>
> https://twitter.com/TezFunz2/status/1790031522315026508

Makes sense, it's had plenty of time as an exclusive. I just hope they
don't use denuvo.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 14/05/2024 01:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>> JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:51 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>> I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
>>> advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
>>> practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
>>> be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
>>> crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.
>>>
>>> The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
>>> is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
>>> accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
>>> films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
>>> a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
>>> make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
>>> that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
>>> (although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
>>> is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
>>> Fiat Punto would be a no, no.
>>
>>
>> Or Sonic wearing SOAP shoes in SA2?
>
>
> I can actually live with that sort of stuff. But I hate it when the
> pacing of the movie is interupted to show off the advertised goods.
> It's not always obvious that is what is happening, but once you start
> noticing it, it becomes extremely obtrusive.
>
> E.g., the heroes run out of the building and get into their waiting
> car. The camera pans in front of the car, focusing lovingly for a half
> second on the automaker's logo on the hood, before moving on to the
> action.
>
> Or:
>
> Hero pulls a can of soda from the fridge, and the label is facing
> outwards (and if he puts it down on the table, it is between him and
> the camera so you can't miss it).
>
>
>
> Apparently, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was one of the first movies to use
> product-placement in this way, but both Kubrick and the advertisers
> were so embarassed by the concept that they worked hard not to make it
> obvious. Would that modern producers had such concerns. I've no trust
> Electronic Arts would.
>

Maybe a possible reason that I'm less adverse to it is that my
understanding is that in Europe the rules of product placement are
considered quite strict by general standards so the things I mentioned
that I have a problem with just don't really happen or aren't overly
noticeable. The BBC is even stricter in anything produced for it and
product placement is very much frowned on even if it fits with the
story. In a soap opera called EastEnders you can have real brands in the
background but if it's in the foreground, nope. That's why you have fake
beers and cereals.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:26:52 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 14/05/2024 01:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>
>>> JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 08:51 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> On 12/05/2024 17:04, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 09:38:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/05/2024 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>>> * EA Considering Putting Ads Into Their Triple-A Games
>>>>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo
>>>> I do agree that the gaming industry is overall worse for including
>>>> advertising but for me it's when it crosses a line into having a
>>>> practical effect on my enjoyment of the game. So I would prefer there to
>>>> be no advertising but I can accept a certain type. The likelihood of EA
>>>> crossing that line and then carrying on for another mile is relatively high.
>>>>
>>>> The examples you're mention are ones that I do have issues. If immersion
>>>> is being broken or the gameplay/story is being unduly 'bent' to
>>>> accommodate advertising then I do have a problem. To take say James Bond
>>>> films, for me there's a difference between having a script that includes
>>>> a flash car that Bond uses (don't they all) and changing the script to
>>>> make a brand of car have a far more prominent role. Saying we have a car
>>>> that Bond will use so who will pay us to make it their car is fine
>>>> (although not good for the viewer). Saying that I would have a problem
>>>> is if the car didn't fit with the character of James Bond at all, so a
>>>> Fiat Punto would be a no, no.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or Sonic wearing SOAP shoes in SA2?
>>
>>
>> I can actually live with that sort of stuff. But I hate it when the
>> pacing of the movie is interupted to show off the advertised goods.
>> It's not always obvious that is what is happening, but once you start
>> noticing it, it becomes extremely obtrusive.
>>
>> E.g., the heroes run out of the building and get into their waiting
>> car. The camera pans in front of the car, focusing lovingly for a half
>> second on the automaker's logo on the hood, before moving on to the
>> action.
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> Hero pulls a can of soda from the fridge, and the label is facing
>> outwards (and if he puts it down on the table, it is between him and
>> the camera so you can't miss it).
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was one of the first movies to use
>> product-placement in this way, but both Kubrick and the advertisers
>> were so embarassed by the concept that they worked hard not to make it
>> obvious. Would that modern producers had such concerns. I've no trust
>> Electronic Arts would.
>>
>
>Maybe a possible reason that I'm less adverse to it is that my
>understanding is that in Europe the rules of product placement are
>considered quite strict by general standards so the things I mentioned
>that I have a problem with just don't really happen or aren't overly
>noticeable. The BBC is even stricter in anything produced for it and
>product placement is very much frowned on even if it fits with the
>story. In a soap opera called EastEnders you can have real brands in the
>background but if it's in the foreground, nope. That's why you have fake
>beers and cereals.

Yeah, the BBC is wonderfully strict about stuff like that.
Unfortunately, they produce only a fraction of the English-speaking
content. Almost anything American-made is saturated with product
placement. I've even noticed it in various Scandanavian productions
(albeit not to the degree as in Merkin shows).

And that's only TV. Even Ofcom isn't a defense against egregious
product placement for /movies/ made in Britain. Or against it in
movies or shows made elsewhere shown in the UK.

Am 14.05.24 um 02:27 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 20:46:11 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.05.24 um 19:37 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>> Huh... in retrospect, all three stories are pretty depressing takes on
>>> the game industry. Maybe I should have found something a bit more
>>> uplifting. Oh well, maybe next time.
>> There are rumours that Red Dead Redemption 1 finally will make it to the PC:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/TezFunz2/status/1790031522315026508
>>
>
> While that would be welcome, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> Not only does Rockstar treat the PC like its red-headed stepchild, but
> the company seems to have only marginal interest in anything that
> can't be turned into a live-service model.
>
> In the meantime, the game works well enough on my PS3 (or was it the
> Xbox360? I forget which platform I have it for)
>
>
Well the chances are high, a pc port bascially was prevented because the
old code was really bad and rock star never bothered to port it in the day.

With the Ps5 and current xbox basically being PCs architecturewise, they
did a port to two pc like platforms (on top of the switch port), so they
basically have the code lying around and just probably have to shift a
switch on the xbox code to get a pc build, it is easy money for them.
That Rockstar treats the PC badly is no news, but in the end they come
around and release a PC port after all the consoles have been served,
RDR wad the exception.
So my hopes are up, but lets wait and see. Love the game btw.

Werner P. <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>With the Ps5 and current xbox basically being PCs architecturewise, they
>did a port to two pc like platforms (on top of the switch port) [...]

Actually there was no updated Xbox port for Red Dead Redemption.
Only the PlayStation 4 and the Nintendo Switch got updated versions.
While you can play Red Dead Redemption on a modern Xbox console, it's
only because they support playing the Xbox 360 version through emulation.

But it's not technical reasons why there hasn't been a PC port. Plenty of
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games have been ported to the PC by Rockstar
and other companies. That includes a lot of games with a much smaller
appeal than RDR, so there's never really been a question of whether a
RDR PC port would be profitable even if it were particularly challenging
to make.

My guess is that Rockstar's bias against PC games comes from a fear
of piracy. They usually do make PC ports of their games, but its always
been a delayed release, and the common assumption has been that piracy has
been main reason for that. I assume that Red Dead Redemption basically
slipped through the cracks here, a PC port being originally planned,
but given such low-priority the idea was eventually dropped after a
number of delays.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Am 15.05.24 um 16:19 schrieb Ross Ridge:
> My guess is that Rockstar's bias against PC games comes from a fear
> of piracy. They usually do make PC ports of their games, but its always
> been a delayed release, and the common assumption has been that piracy has
> been main reason for that. I assume that Red Dead Redemption basically
> slipped through the cracks here, a PC port being originally planned,
> but given such low-priority the idea was eventually dropped after a
> number of delays.
Yes lets wait and see, there are atm 3 options to play the game on the
PC anyway, neither is perfect but you can finish the game.
The best bet to play the game is if you still have a copy of YUZU and
can get hold of the rom, or on the XBOX 360 emulator, the PS3 emulation
is somewhat subpar in the framerate (but so was the original PS3
version, I bought a used PS3 for cheap just to be able to play this game
btw)

On 14/05/2024 15:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Maybe a possible reason that I'm less adverse to it is that my
>> understanding is that in Europe the rules of product placement are
>> considered quite strict by general standards so the things I mentioned
>> that I have a problem with just don't really happen or aren't overly
>> noticeable. The BBC is even stricter in anything produced for it and
>> product placement is very much frowned on even if it fits with the
>> story. In a soap opera called EastEnders you can have real brands in the
>> background but if it's in the foreground, nope. That's why you have fake
>> beers and cereals.

> Yeah, the BBC is wonderfully strict about stuff like that.
> Unfortunately, they produce only a fraction of the English-speaking
> content. Almost anything American-made is saturated with product
> placement. I've even noticed it in various Scandanavian productions
> (albeit not to the degree as in Merkin shows).
>
> And that's only TV. Even Ofcom isn't a defense against egregious
> product placement for/movies/ made in Britain. Or against it in
> movies or shows made elsewhere shown in the UK.

This is where my understanding gets a bit hazy but I believe in theory
anything shown on a UK broadcast service comes under its remit but the
rules are slightly different for films made for cinema. Streaming
services I'm even less sure about but if they have a UK presence
(Netflix is one that doesn't) then Ofcom is interested*.

*My guess though is Ofcom are like a lot of regulators** in that they
only really get involved if people are taking the piss.

**Unless you're Ofwat where the water companies break the rules almost
with impunity as it's not fair on the shareholders to make the companies
actually have to pay to have a decent infrastructure that means you're
not frequently pumping raw sewage into our rivers and seas.