PDA

View Full Version : Supreme irony [SPOILERS]



Kodaemon
18th Sep 2011, 04:45
A game which makes a plot point about people getting updates without thinking... gets forced updates. Which includes ads.

The Illuminati in HR were at least more subtle, they never forced people to install the upgrade, just made it seem like a good idea. Valve and Squeenix however just went from Illuminati to MJ12.


Thank you for contacting Steam Support.

The option to disable automatic updates does not disable the requirement for Steam to install the latest updates before launching your game. This option will only allow you to delay the update until you next choose to launch the game.

There are no options for running Steam games without all necessary updates.

The joke's on all of us.

IdiotInAJeep
18th Sep 2011, 05:04
Yay for capitalism.

Pinky_Powers
18th Sep 2011, 05:22
Patches are good. I want my game up-to-date and running as well as it can.

Kodaemon
18th Sep 2011, 05:29
Then go and download them. But don't force me to do it as well.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 07:43
Why would you NOT install that patch?

OH NOEZ, it has ads on loading screens, the horror...

Btw, you wanna see some real irony?


Yay for capitalism.

IdiotInAJeep
18th Sep 2011, 07:49
Why would you NOT install that patch?

OH NOEZ, it has ads on loading screens, the horror...

Btw, you wanna see some real irony?

I thought he was referring more to the implementation of ads then patches. I have nothing against Steam or updates, I thought the ads were included in an update but it seems they've just started transmitting the ads and the functionality was always there.

Kodaemon
18th Sep 2011, 07:56
I mostly mentioned the ads since they're something even the majority of Steam-supporting sheep seems to agree sucks.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 08:03
I will never understand how a bunch of tiny loading screen ads can be anything horrible in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, yeah, "if we allow them to do this, then all games will have ads everywhere". Slippery slope fallacy ftw.

JCpies
18th Sep 2011, 08:13
I will never understand how a bunch of tiny loading screen ads can be anything horrible in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, yeah, "if we allow them to do this, then all games will have ads everywhere". Slippery slope fallacy ftw.

It ruins immersion on the loading screens.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 08:30
It ruins immersion on the loading screens.

Loading screens are so immersive.

jtr7
18th Sep 2011, 08:39
Restroom break!

When I find out what I get in return for those kinds of ads, I may appreciate them. Until then, I doubt the defenders who aren't affiliated with the companies will be put out for having them removed.

Romeo
18th Sep 2011, 08:46
I will never understand how a bunch of tiny loading screen ads can be anything horrible in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, yeah, "if we allow them to do this, then all games will have ads everywhere". Slippery slope fallacy ftw.
It's the simple act of it: We've already given them money. We paid for the experience, should be ours. Instead we're getting ads wedged in to our experience, without our permission, and we are not benefitting from it AT ALL. The fact it was effectively hidden until most sales had been made then unleashed also is an insult as a customer.

You say we shouldn't worry about the ads. I give it to you to name one good thing about them.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 08:50
How about you name me one REALLY bad thing about them. So far, we've only seen them during loading screens. That's it. Haven't seen any in-game billboards, any pop-ups on my HUD, anything that is actually intrusive.


We've already given them money. We paid for the experience, should be ours. Instead we're getting ads wedged in to our experience, without our permission, and we are not benefitting from it AT ALL

Oh, so it works the same as in everything else on this world that has ads? Hell, this is less intrusive than most google ads.


The fact it was effectively hidden until most sales had been made then unleashed also is an insult as a customer.

To be fair, is makes perfect sense for them to put ads in after they have enough people that will actually look at them.

Romeo
18th Sep 2011, 08:54
How about you name me one REALLY bad thing about them. So far, we've only seen them during loading screens. That's it. Haven't seen any in-game billboards, any pop-ups on my HUD, anything that is actually intrusive.
I have already listed off a personal reason: I find it disrespectful as a customer. My rights weren't considered in the slightest with this decision. Square is simply forcing something upon me to net themselves more profit.

So, there's one bad thing. Now go ahead and list a positive one.

jtr7
18th Sep 2011, 09:00
Yeah, VM, we know it makes sense from a short-term business perspective, but we're the consumers. I don't give a damn about putting money in pockets for a product I don't want or benefit from. I didn't pay for a Google subscription, did you?

JCpies
18th Sep 2011, 09:01
I think VectorM really is Bobby Kotick.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 09:03
They forced a very small and uninintrusive ad on their own game. Oh, noez.


My rights weren't considered in the slightest with this decision.

Do you even know what your rights are and what Sqare's rights are? I doubt you read any EULA's.


I think VectorM really is Bobby Kotick.

Considering that I am against the very idea of copyrights, I don't think I resemble any CEO on the planet.

ilweran
18th Sep 2011, 09:52
I don't really like the idea, but on the other hand I pay for Sky and their channels are full of ads and they seem to like being extra intrusive by increasing the volume - there's lots of things we pay for that include adverts, are they acceptable? If they are why isn't this? A small, silent ad in a loading doesn't seem like the worst thing Squeenix could do and if it helps ensure the money is there to make another Deus Ex game...

Jibbajabba
18th Sep 2011, 10:32
Surely they are pushed through the web ... If they are so annoying, fire up your firewall and block all incoming connections during gameplay or just pull the plug. Saves are store locally, I am sure it is the same for Steam (who needs cloud saves anyway unless you play on multiple computer and even then you can transfere the files manually).

imported_BoB_
18th Sep 2011, 13:25
I don't really like the idea, but on the other hand I pay for Sky and their channels are full of ads and they seem to like being extra intrusive by increasing the volume - there's lots of things we pay for that include adverts, are they acceptable? If they are why isn't this? A small, silent ad in a loading doesn't seem like the worst thing Squeenix could do and if it helps ensure the money is there to make another Deus Ex game...

Yeah sure, it's already in others media where other people blatantly accept them, so why complaining about them in videogames. It would really be a shame to be able to not have ads...

This thought process is really flawed.

TV ads weren't intrusive to begin with, it's because they pushed and pushed, and no one complained so they kept pushing, and now it's too late because it's how it works. FYI, it's just how the whole world works.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 13:39
TV ads weren't intrusive to begin with, it's because they pushed and pushed, and no one complained so they kept pushing, and now it's too late because it's how it works.

They were as intrusive as they are now, just not as many, obviously. And what do you know, you can still watch TV just fine and they don't have ads every 5 minutes, like some people probably thought, back in the day.



It would really be a shame to be able to not have ads...

If you want to have TV at all, that doesn't rely on donations or pay-per views, ads are the way to go.

Jason Parker
18th Sep 2011, 13:40
... and if it helps ensure the money is there to make another Deus Ex game...

See that's a point that I strongly doubt until any official of either Eidos or Square reliably assures us otherwise. Until then I believe that money will be used to increase the companies market value and the shareholder's yield. Judging from DX:HR's success so far we'd get a sequel regardless of ads. If the placement of ads on a product does not impact it's price for the consumer anymore then there simply is something wrong. I as the customer am abused so to speak to increase the viewer numbers for the ads (I'm sure the revenue gained from the ads is linked to that number in one way or another) but I do not benefit from it?

Ad's in cinema are mainly there so the cinemas can keep the prices as "low" as they are. Same for ads on blue-rays, DvDs and in TV.

Ads in games to me are a whole other story. Surely the budgets for making AAA games has increased a lot over the years, but so has the market as a whole, and all of the games are refined to appeal as many buyers as possible. And while games still cost 40$ to 50$ for PC and 60$ for consoles the number of sold units always is enough to make up for production costs and producing a profit (otherwise we'd be seeing a lot more publishers advertising in their games for real life products, or an increase in prices for games). So keeping the current prices to me is not a believable reason for placing ads. So the impact clearly has to be lowered prices either for the base game or for following DLCs.

imported_BoB_
18th Sep 2011, 13:48
They were as intrusive as they are now, just not as many, obviously. And what do you know, you can still watch TV just fine and they don't have ads every 5 minutes, like some people probably thought, back in the day.


Not as many and not during the shows but before and after. So no, not as intrusive at all...



If you want to have TV at all, that doesn't rely on donations or pay-per views, ads are the way to go.

Didn't I say "and now it's how it works"?
In US, maybe that you have ads on all channels, but in others countries, there is public channels that don't have ads during your shows actually, like on the France 2/3/4 channels.
And in England, there is no ads on the BBC channels, unbelievable...

ilweran
18th Sep 2011, 13:52
Yeah sure, it's already in others media where other people blatantly accept them, so why complaining about them in videogames. It would really be a shame to be able to not have ads...

This thought process is really flawed.

Well I did say I didn't like the idea, I was just looking at other possible view points. Even books tend to have lists of other books by the same author or publisher so it is everywhere.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 13:59
In US, maybe that you have ads on all channels, but in others countries, there is public channels that don't have ads during your shows actually, like on the France 2/3/4 channels.
And in England, there is no ads on the BBC channels, unbelievable...

Oh, so government sponsored channels, that you are forced to pay for, have no ads. Brilliant.

imported_BoB_
18th Sep 2011, 14:03
Don't you also pay the US channels anyway, regardless of ads?

Jason Parker
18th Sep 2011, 14:08
Even books tend to have lists of other books by the same author or publisher so it is everywhere.

Like many games had preview trailers for upcoming games from the same publisher/developer in their menus. And guess what: no on complains about that. Because cross-promotion actualy is an investment of money to advertise their own products.

Placing ads for the products of others to make money through it is a whole other story. And in all other media mentioned that does advertising the money from the ads directly or indirectly impacts the pricing, which I do not see for games at the moment. That and the way how it was done is what's so upsetting about the ads in DX:HR.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 15:08
The thing is, that ads in games have never really been profitable.

ilweran
18th Sep 2011, 15:13
Oh, so government sponsored channels, that you are forced to pay for, have no ads. Brilliant.

We're all forced to pay for all the commercial channels everytime we shop, unless we manage to avoid buying any products from a company that advertises. At least I know exactly how much the BBC is costing me and I have a choice - if I don't like it I can get rid of my tv. I doubt I'd miss it that much.

Jason Parker
18th Sep 2011, 15:43
The thing is, that ads in games have never really been profitable.

Then it's even less understandable why we have to face them in this way.

Gamemako
18th Sep 2011, 15:56
The joke's on all of us.

The joke being that the latest patch makes the game unplayable for some of us.

Maybe it's time to go back to physical media...

Sid_Loman
18th Sep 2011, 16:32
Patches are good. I want my game up-to-date and running as well as it can.

Unless the patches are poorly made and make the game unplayable for some players.

Worst patch ever, I got lucky and finished the game one day before that abomination hit us, but it still drives me crazy how they managed to screw up so hard. Are they even acknowledging the issue and working on fix, or did they just throw the money I paid for the game out of the window?

In case anybody doesn't know yet - the latest patch made the game extremely laggy for some players, making it basically unplayable. Yeah, and the inventory is broken too.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 16:44
At least I know exactly how much the BBC is costing me and I have a choice - if I don't like it I can get rid of my tv. I doubt I'd miss it that much.

Um, it's government sponsored television. You pay for it, even if you've never had a TV set in your life.
Hell, in this game, you can block the ads. Try not paying some of your taxes and see what happens then...


Then it's even less understandable why we have to face them in this way.

What I meant was, that since it's not profitable, you won't really see all the benefits that such a system can potentially bring, like less cost, etc.

ilweran
18th Sep 2011, 17:06
What? I pay for the BBC through the licence fee. If I have no tv I don't have to buy a licence. It's not a tax.

Fluffis
18th Sep 2011, 17:25
The joke being that the latest patch makes the game unplayable for some of us.


This is very much true for me. It ran fairly smoothly for me prior to the patch. After it, it's gotten really bad in places.


What? I pay for the BBC through the licence fee. If I have no tv I don't have to buy a licence. It's not a tax.

It's the same here in Sweden. If you don't have a TV, you don't pay a licence fee. No tax funding.

beerotaur
18th Sep 2011, 19:04
Seeing an ad means that some lame company just paid some artist to do some graphics. The net result? Artist gets paid, company loses money, and I don't dish out any more money than I normally would. An ad never made me want to buy anything, their only net effect is the mild annoyance, but it's comforting to know that someone paid for the ad. Advertisements are a waste of resources, except for the artists involved.


If I run into something awesome, it's then when I ask "Hey, who created this thing anyway?" That's how advertisement should work - through impressive product quality. Impress the people, and people will line up to buy more after the word gets around.


Truly amazing things do not need to be advertised, and if I see an ad of something, I tend to think "That's not worth looking into, since it needed an ad".

Kodaemon
18th Sep 2011, 19:19
OK, we're getting sidetracked here: this thread isn't really about ads, it's about forced updates. Ads are just one reason this awful.

Gamemako, Sid_Loman and Fluffis mentioned another, which is patches breaking stuff. I agree with that, last year half of my favourite Half-Life 2 mods got broken when Valve randomly decided to throw the Source file structure into a blender.

Also, I'll ad large file sizes - sure, the current update was only 32 megs, but I've had to deal with patches weighing over a gigabyte. Try to download something like that at 10kb/s, with Steam disconnecting every few hours. Not everyone has access to fast internet.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 19:26
What? I pay for the BBC through the licence fee. If I have no tv I don't have to buy a licence. It's not a tax.

That is indeed better than paying for it anyway, but why should you have to pay for a channel that you might never watch?

Fluffis
18th Sep 2011, 19:41
That is indeed better than paying for it anyway, but why should you have to pay for a channel that you might never watch?

Because it's public service. Everyone with a TV has access to it, which means everyone with a TV has to pay for it. It would not be tenable to have a public service television where you only pay if you watch - they couldn't afford programming. The only way to deal with it would be ads or taxes (or those pathetic Telethons, that PBS are forced into in the U.S.). I'd argue that most people here in Sweden, at least, are very happy to have channels (five of them, one of which is only re-runs of public service programmes, and HD versions for the two big channels) where programmes are not interrupted by commercials, and taxes would be unfair to the people who don't actually own a TV.

It may not be a perfect system, but it's one that works. It even survives the a-holes who avoid paying, because most people are actually honest enough to do it.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 20:23
Because it's public service. Everyone with a TV has access to it, which means everyone with a TV has to pay for it.

Why the hell is television a public service? Why should anyone have to pay for a channel, that they might not watch at all? Why is everyone who owns a TV forced to pay for a service, that has absolutely no need to be handled by the government?


I'd argue that most people here in Sweden, at least, are very happy to have channels (five of them, one of which is only re-runs of public service programmes, and HD versions for the two big channels) where programmes are not interrupted by commercials, and taxes would be unfair to the people who don't actually own a TV.

So you are satisfied with a system, that has left you with less choice than freaking Bulgaria? Seriously?

And I am sorry, but it's basically tax. You wanna own a TV? Gotta pay Gov.co

imported_BoB_
18th Sep 2011, 21:12
Why the hell is television a public service?

You are aware than any private channel is owned and controlled by a big corporation that usually owns others companies and try to sell you stuff and influence you throught it right?
I mean, it's not sci-fi, it's just reality. In 2004, the CEO of the biggest channel in France (that is a private channel "free") said:

"There are many ways to speak about TV, but in a business perspective, let's be realistic: at the basis, TF1's job is helping Coca-Cola, for example, to sell its product. What we sell to Coca-Cola is available human brain time. Nothing is more difficult than obtaining this availability. This is where permanent change is located. We must always look out for popular programs, follow trends, surf on tendencies, in a context in which information is speeding up, getting manifold and trivialized."

So a channel free of ads and/or a public channel is basically less slant and much more supervised by others authorities.

Fluffis
18th Sep 2011, 21:27
Why the hell is television a public service? Why should anyone have to pay for a channel, that they might not watch at all? Why is everyone who owns a TV forced to pay for a service, that has absolutely no need to be handled by the government?


Why it's a public service? So that people don't have to watch commercials in order to watch the news, for instance. To be able to watch programmes that are not dependent on corporations for funding.



So you are satisfied with a system, that has left you with less choice than freaking Bulgaria? Seriously?


Me, I have 50+ channels - about 30 of them are Swedish. It's not like the public service channels are the only ones we've got, man. :lol:



And I am sorry, but it's basically tax. You wanna own a TV? Gotta pay Gov.co

Like I said; it's not perfect - but it works. It makes sure that there are TV channels where anyone can get news, cultural programming and educational shows, regional programming and things like that, including pure entertainment and sports, without corporate interests playing any major role.

Jason Parker
18th Sep 2011, 21:36
What I meant was, that since it's not profitable, you won't really see all the benefits that such a system can potentially bring, like less cost, etc. That just supports my point that the pro-ad argument of money being created to reinvest into future projects is pretty much void. And of course so is my argument that this money serves only the purpose of creating bigger company value and thus bigger yield for shareholders. And if both of those are void there simply is no sane reason to put ads in when they create an outrage amongst part of the customer base (wether that outrage is justified or exxageration is arguable of course and discussed a lot at this moment) that has the potential to negatively impact sales of the DLC if it starts spreading outside of these forums.

Romeo
18th Sep 2011, 21:47
Just as a side note, for those saying TV ads and Radio ads are worse, I'd like to mention that anyone who watched Falling Skies was treated to 44 minutes of show and 16 minutes of ads. In and of itself, that's nothing special. What was special is that they ran the entire 44 minutes of show straight, and tacked on all the ads at the end. This meant if you PVRed the show, you still contributed to their ad-ratings, but it didn't impede your experience in the least. 99.3 the Fox in Vancouver has adopted a similar technique, with the show going for half an hour of music plus about fifteen minutes total of the hosts in between songs (So about forty-five minutes of "entertainment" straight). Then, a straight fifteen minutes of ads right after.

Are these systems perfect? No. But considering their genres have been plagued by advertisements (Something most people accept as a necessary evil), it is a step forward. In comparison, introducing more blatent advertising in to an industry typically devoid of advertising, or at the bare minimum which had non-intrusive advertising, is a step backwards.

Solid_1723
18th Sep 2011, 21:48
A game which makes a plot point about people getting updates without thinking... gets forced updates. Which includes ads.

The Illuminati in HR were at least more subtle, they never forced people to install the upgrade, just made it seem like a good idea. Valve and Squeenix however just went from Illuminati to MJ12.



The joke's on all of us.

I agree that FORCED updates are a bad idea. Most of the time it works fine of course, but when an update breaks mods I like to play like someone mentioned, I'd prefer to have the option of just skipping the update if I so desire. There are also updates that effectively break a game for certain users. With a non steam game I can either just skip the update, or if already installed, I can just reinstall the game and revert to the version which was still playable.
I also sympathize with people like yourself, who have crapppy internet connections. I'd be so pissed if I had to go through a 10h update while not being able to play my game for the entire duration.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 21:49
Me, I have 50+ channels - about 30 of them are Swedish. It's not like the public service channels are the only ones we've got, man. :lol:


LOL, your post made me think you actually had only those 5 :nut:


Why it's a public service? So that people don't have to watch commercials in order to watch the news, for instance.

And we absolutely need to force that on anyone that even owns a TV.


It makes sure that there are TV channels where anyone can get news, cultural programming and educational shows, regional programming and things like that, including pure entertainment and sports, without corporate interests playing any major role.

And government interest is of no concern, because?

Fluffis
18th Sep 2011, 22:15
LOL, your post made me think you actually had only those 5 :nut:


Yeah, I kind of phrased it a bit poorly, I think. :)



And we absolutely need to force that on anyone that even owns a TV.


If they don't get the money, they can't do the programming and they'll have to either cut back on quality (losing more viewers) or find other sources of revenue; commercials, which would cause a public outcry, or straight taxation, which would cause another outcry. Edit: Yes, the majority of the Swedish people do actually want it this way, believe it or not. Otherwise the whole system would have been scrapped long ago.



And government interest is of no concern, because?

Because the only input the government has is that as long as the channels air public interest and public service programmes, they don't interfere in any way, shape or form. The people who work at those channels, have no particular connection to any political party. They are run like any other company, in that way. There is a board of directors set up by the government, but it's stipulated that the government keep their fingers out of the broadcast agency's business, unless extraordinary circumstances take place. It's the law. They are also checked by the parliament, to see that this is enforced.

Freedom of speech and of the press/media is not just an idea in this country - it's a fiercely protected right. The government owned channels offer up criticism of the government when called for, and that's the way the government itself has set it up. It's the whole "checks and balances" thing.

VectorM
18th Sep 2011, 22:34
If they don't get the money, they can't do the programming and they'll have to either cut back on quality (losing more viewers) or find other sources of revenue; commercials, which would cause a public outcry, or straight taxation, which would cause another outcry.

As far as I know, nobody is forcing these people to work. SO why are you forced to pay for it, again? There is NO logical reason why such a channel should exist that somehow makes it mandatory for you to pay anything, unless you already agreed to it.


commercials which would cause a public outcry, or straight taxation, which would cause another outcry

So people in Sweden are OK with you being forced to pay for something you don't want, just so they won't see any ads? Seriously?

imported_BoB_
18th Sep 2011, 22:38
Just as a side note, for those saying TV ads and Radio ads are worse, I'd like to mention that anyone who watched Falling Skies was treated to 44 minutes of show and 16 minutes of ads. In and of itself, that's nothing special. What was special is that they ran the entire 44 minutes of show straight, and tacked on all the ads at the end. This meant if you PVRed the show, you still contributed to their ad-ratings, but it didn't impede your experience in the least. 99.3 the Fox in Vancouver has adopted a similar technique, with the show going for half an hour of music plus about fifteen minutes total of the hosts in between songs (So about forty-five minutes of "entertainment" straight). Then, a straight fifteen minutes of ads right after.


Yeah and three years ago, FOX already tried another thing, two TV Shows (the first seasons of Dollhouse and Fringe) had episodes of 55 minutes instead of 44, and with less ads in total, companies were ready to pay 40% more for a slot because their ads stood out more for the viewer.
It was not just for the viewer pleasure but because people tend to change channel during ads more or more, and with the internet generation, it's gonna be a more important factor than ever for the channels because this generation doesn't consume television like previous ones.


There is NO logical reason why such a channel should exist that somehow makes it mandatory for you to pay anything, unless you already agreed to it.

You don't understand on purpose, right?
It's not less logical to buy only one channel, and having one side of information and everything, one slant side... And when I say one channel, I don't really mean one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation) channel (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read).

Fluffis
18th Sep 2011, 23:06
As far as I know, nobody is forcing these people to work. SO why are you forced to pay for it, again? There is NO logical reason why such a channel should exist that somehow makes it mandatory for you to pay anything, unless you already agreed to it.

So people in Sweden are OK with you being forced to pay for something you don't want, just so they won't see any ads? Seriously?

The channels are a public service, which means that nobody should be excluded. This means that everyone has access to the channels, as soon as they purchase a TV - they are the only channels that everyone is guaranteed to be able to watch, no matter what. No, there is nothing sinister about it; it's a service provided by the government - the same as health care, schools, law-enforcement and so on - in order for people all over the country to be connected to current events, and at least some degree of entertainment. The channels must be funded and, since they are government owned, commercials would be... ethically ambiguous, at least.

Here's the kicker: the majority want these channels, quite simply because the quality of the programming is significantly higher, and less brain-numbing, than most of the commercial channels.

VectorM
19th Sep 2011, 05:40
The channels are a public service, which means that nobody should be excluded

That should not be a public service to begin with!


No, there is nothing sinister about it; it's a service provided by the government - the same as health care, schools, law-enforcement and so on - in order for people all over the country to be connected to current events, and at least some degree of entertainment.

All of that is already provided by the private sector and how is it not sinister to force someone in to something he doesn't even want? If your people really want this, why are they being forced to pay then?

If this was a corporation doing this, forcing you to pay for a game that you might not even want to play, simply because you own a PC, you would consider that to be nearly evil. But when Gov.co does it, it's all OK.

Tverdyj
19th Sep 2011, 05:46
A game which makes a plot point about people getting updates without thinking... gets forced updates. Which includes ads.

The Illuminati in HR were at least more subtle, they never forced people to install the upgrade, just made it seem like a good idea. Valve and Squeenix however just went from Illuminati to MJ12.



The joke's on all of us.

it's called offline mode.

Edit: also, I must be living in a bubble, because I'm still to see these ads.

AdamJensen2027
19th Sep 2011, 07:58
seriously people whats the problem with the ads???? its only in the loading screens where you just sit there doing nothing waiting for it to load nothing annoying about that, i know people minds are programed that the word 'ads' = evil
but its not always the case.....

also let them make more money so they can bring us more awesomeness in the future.
if the ads popped up during your intense fight or your stealthy sneaking then start to complain.... and hard, but this is just the loading screen, chill out people and take it easy. its all good.

Fluffis
19th Sep 2011, 12:20
That should not be a public service to begin with!


"Should not"? Huh? Why? Because it isn't in the U.S.? Who are you to make a claim like that? Public Service TV works beautifully, in a lot of countries.



All of that is already provided by the private sector and how is it not sinister to force someone in to something he doesn't even want? If your people really want this, why are they being forced to pay then?


Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a TV. A TV in Sweden is bought with the express condition that you pay for the public service channels. Everyone knows this. When you buy a TV, you're agreeing to pay.



If this was a corporation doing this, forcing you to pay for a game that you might not even want to play, simply because you own a PC, you would consider that to be nearly evil. But when Gov.co does it, it's all OK.

Because if a company does it, it is guaranteed to be driven solely by an interest in profit. These TV channels do it in order to provide good programming - commercial-free - and public services like the news.

I know you believe that the purely capitalistic way of dealing with things is the only good way (call it past experience), but this works, because people want it this way. People are actually willing to pay, in order to not have to watch commercials. Even the right-wing parties in power at the moment don't mess with it, because they know we want it this way.

Anyway: this has gotten so far off topic, it's not even funny any more. Time to stop.

Ulysses
19th Sep 2011, 12:46
At times like this, I hate the gaming industry.

Kodaemon
19th Sep 2011, 15:16
it's called offline mode.

...and you can't install a game while in it.

Kvltism
19th Sep 2011, 16:18
Hahaha, the ad roll-out reminds me of a jab someone delivered a little while back, when people initially made a fuss over in-game advertising. Deus Ex: Human Revolution... brought to you by Carl's Jr.

For the record, I haven't installed the new patch, so no ads for me! (yet)

MaxxQ1
19th Sep 2011, 16:58
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a TV. A TV in Sweden is bought with the express condition that you pay for the public service channels. Everyone knows this. When you buy a TV, you're agreeing to pay.

Agreed. I'm from the US, but spent 3 years in England. We had a TV, we had to pay for a TV licence. At the time I was there, the cost was 50 pounds a year. At the exchange rate at the time (mid 1980's), that works out to about $75 per year. That paid for four channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV (I think), and Channel 4 (cable was *just* getting there, at least in my area - East Anglia, more specifically, the little town of Burwell).

Vector, think of it this way. Buying a TV licence is just like having car insurance. Many states here force one to have car insurance in order to drive. Taking the car analogy even further, several other states force one to have an annual inspection of their car, complete with an inspection sticker (Ohio doesn't do that... yet), something they do in England as well, and was, in fact, my first experience with it.

Tverdyj
19th Sep 2011, 17:50
...and you can't install a game while in it.

hmm
i've had Steam in online mode for the last few nights and most of the day yesterday, as I was installing (read: downloading) Darksiders.

just launched HR again to test it.
version 1.2.630.0

absolutely no ads on loading screens.

is there any reason this is only affecting some people?

jd10013
19th Sep 2011, 18:02
Vector, think of it this way. Buying a TV licence is just like having car insurance. .

they're nothing the same. car insurance is to protect others from damage you could do to them. your not required to insure yourself.

jd10013
19th Sep 2011, 18:06
Don't you also pay the US channels anyway, regardless of ads?

since nobody answered this, no, you do not have to pay for channels in the US. there are about a dozen free channels that are supported entirely by advertising, and broadcast over the airwaves. just like radio. most people though, choose to pay for better service through a cable provider or dish/satellite provider. those providers also offer hundreds of channels you can purchase, usually in packages.

at least that's how it used to be, and I think still is. telecom is changing really fast in the states.

Kodaemon
19th Sep 2011, 18:56
is there any reason this is only affecting some people?

It's region based.

Tverdyj
19th Sep 2011, 20:46
It's region based.

well, I guess EM didn't want to put themselves through those ads, hehe

MaxxQ1
20th Sep 2011, 05:30
they're nothing the same. car insurance is to protect others from damage you could do to them. your not required to insure yourself.

But if you drive a car, it's mandatory to have it - that's the point I was making. If you have a TV, in Sweden and England, it's mandatory to have the licence. I can't explain it in simpler words.