Misleading Videogame Advertising...

[trebor]

First, the article...


Call of Duty Ads Called Misleading
Future video game advertising could be impacted by ruling.
by Wade Steel

February 22, 2006 - In a decision that may have wide-ranging implications for the way videogames are advertised, a British consumer watchdog group has ruled that Activision's advertisements for its Call of Duty games are "misleading" and ordered them never to be shown in their present form again, according to a report at GamesIndustry.biz.

The complaint, which was filed by three consumers with the United Kingdom's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), centered around the television advertising for Activision's most recent entries in the Call of Duty series -- Call of Duty 2 for the PC and Xbox 360 and Call of Duty 2: Big Red One for current-generation consoles. According to the complaining parties, Activision's advertising was misleading because "the graphics used in the [advertisement] were superior to that of the game itself."

The subsequent investigation by the ASA revealed that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) -- a group responsible for the pre-transmission examination and clearance of television advertisements in the UK -- believed that the graphics in the advertisements were "scenes taken from the games themselves." It was only after contacting Activision itself to ask about the complaints that it was discovered that the graphics were "computer-generated scenes...produced solely for the ads."

According to the ASA, this revalation "immediately made the ads unacceptable for broadcast" because the ads did not reflect the quality of the actual graphics which would be present in the games themselves. The ASA ruled that because the ads were misleading, they could no longer be shown in their present form.

Activision attempted to counter the ASA ruling by stating that such use of pre-rendered footage represented a "common industry practice" and that the company had acted in "good faith." The ASA rejected this argument on the grounds that it was an "insufficient" defense of the advertisements.

While the ASA's authority does not extend beyond the United Kingdom, industry analysts believe that it may very well set a precedent across the industry on an international level as developers and publishers approach the use of pre-rendered footage with more caution out of fear of similar consumer reactions.

Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has posted this article yet, seeing as how it applies to the videogame industry as a whole. Granted, this ruling just pertains to the UK, but the principle behind the ruling could definitely have some effect in N.America.

Anyways, I'm especially delighted by this news because I disliked the Call of Duty ads for "Big Red One" because they specifically show a CG rendered movie in "First Person" view, which obviously is the same perspective the game shows. I've been playing videogames long enough to know the difference between a CG rendered movie and actual gameplay, which is probably why I disliked the ads as much as I did - I knew exactly how misleading they were.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but to me this could mean a paradigm shift in the way games are advertised in the future - instead of seeing glitzy fake animations, you might start seeing actual gameplay more and more.

[Gadfly2317]

Remember the Animal Crossing ads that had people dressed in big fuzzy animal costumes coming over to your house to hang out with you (the ad showed you looking like a big cartoony stoned guy) ? In no way did these "graphics" actually represent what the game "looked" like.

Man, I feel so ripped off and mislead.

[VGV]

Remember the Animal Crossing ads that had people dressed in big fuzzy animal costumes coming over to your house to hang out with you (the ad showed you looking like a big cartoony stoned guy) ? In no way did these "graphics" actually represent what the game "looked" like.

Man, I feel so ripped off and mislead.

LOL !!! Don't worry ... the revolution version will probably sport graphics like those you
saw in the ad http://forums.videogamereview.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

[trebor]

Remember the Animal Crossing ads that had people dressed in big fuzzy animal costumes coming over to your house to hang out with you (the ad showed you looking like a big cartoony stoned guy) ? In no way did these "graphics" actually represent what the game "looked" like.

Man, I feel so ripped off and mislead.

That's different and you know it, wiseacre.

You know as well as I do that in 90% of videogame commercials, they pass off CG rendered cutscenes as if it's actual gameplay. Like the Xmen Legends 2 commercials, for instance, they only showed cutscenes from the game (which ARE beautiful, to be sure) and showed no actual gameplay shots.

I'm not saying I personally feel "ripped off" or "mislead", I know better then that. What I AM saying is that showing CG rendered cutscenes for videogame commericials is by far the norm and it will be interesting to see what kind of effect this UK ruling might have on that particular practice.

[Aylmer]

First, the article...



Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has posted this article yet, seeing as how it applies to the videogame industry as a whole. Granted, this ruling just pertains to the UK, but the principle behind the ruling could definitely have some effect in N.America.

Anyways, I'm especially delighted by this news because I disliked the Call of Duty ads for "Big Red One" because they specifically show a CG rendered movie in "First Person" view, which obviously is the same perspective the game shows. I've been playing videogames long enough to know the difference between a CG rendered movie and actual gameplay, which is probably why I disliked the ads as much as I did - I knew exactly how misleading they were.

Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but to me this could mean a paradigm shift in the way games are advertised in the future - instead of seeing glitzy fake animations, you might start seeing actual gameplay more and more.

Misleading advertising goes way further than that, I'm afraid. In fact, it's been going on for so long that most long-time gamers accept it as a fact of videogame marketing. Now, however, with the mainstreaming of gaming, they are going to have to clean up their act.

Recently, I bought two games for the DS that had false advertising right on the box. They are Bust A Move and Golden Nugget Casino, both published by Majesco. Bust A Move claims network play, which it does not have, but the casino game is missing a couple of games that are printed right on the box as well as stated in the press release.

I've purchased PC software that has had some functionality removed at the last minute, and stickers were placed over the print that pertained to the missing parts. That's ok by me, if they've paid to print a bunch of covers and something came up at the last minute where it was removed or never put in, I don't have a problem with it as long as they are up front about it, using stickers or whatever.

But outright lies tend to frost my azz.

[Mochan]

Well, we all believe that them UKers are cooks so we never pay attention to them! Right moya?


BTW -- I have *never* seen an ad for a video game on TV. I guess it's because I just don't watch TV. :D

[Mochan]

Well, we all believe that them UKers are cooks so we never pay attention to them! Right moya?


BTW -- I have *never* seen an ad for a video game on TV. I guess it's because I just don't watch TV. :D

[GameLegend]

Final Fantasy 8

[Cuddly Knife]

Huh? FF8?

Anyways, I agree that these 'mercials should actually show the gameplay in the games instead of CG. Not that I base my purchases on these commercials anyways, but i do like seeing gameplay.

You know what one of the worst ones is? " PSP. It's like carpet, that you can watch outside." STUPID!!! There was a cool PSP one that showed a PSP getting tossed around to other dudes, and each one was shown playing a different game. That all right, because it's inventive, and shows gameplay.

[Aylmer]

Huh? FF8?

Anyways, I agree that these 'mercials should actually show the gameplay in the games instead of CG. Not that I base my purchases on these commercials anyways, but i do like seeing gameplay.

You know what one of the worst ones is? " PSP. It's like carpet, that you can watch outside." STUPID!!! There was a cool PSP one that showed a PSP getting tossed around to other dudes, and each one was shown playing a different game. That all right, because it's inventive, and shows gameplay.

I saw that ad also. It was inventive...but I'd never toss my PSP around like that.

[Glockstar]

I feel both sides.

At first I was glad to hear that Activision was getting reemed for misleading people.

But after a second, I thought, why is the videogame industry bearing the brunt of other peoples troubles again? All advertising is misleading! What about all those beer commercials? What about all those SUV commericals? What about those Axe commercials?!

Or, are "gamers" really that stupid and gullible?

Btw trebor, you said that you can, "tell the difference between a CG rendered movie and actual gameplay", well... what say you about those PS3 videos Sony showed at last years E3? There was a lot of debate over those, but I don't recall you saying anything either way.(?)

[trebor]

I feel both sides.

At first I was glad to hear that Activision was getting reemed for misleading people.

But after a second, I thought, why is the videogame industry bearing the brunt of other peoples troubles again? All advertising is misleading! What about all those beer commercials? What about all those SUV commericals? What about those Axe commercials?!

Or, are "gamers" really that stupid and gullible?

Well, a lot of beer commercials, SUV commercials, and Axe (?) commercials come complete with that tiny bit of text usually reads like "Professional driver, don't attempt at home." or "Professional stunt man, don't attempt at home". or "Professional whore, don't attempt at home." Whereas there is nothing like that on videogame advertising.



Btw trebor, you said that you can, "tell the difference between a CG rendered movie and actual gameplay", well... what say you about those PS3 videos Sony showed at last years E3? There was a lot of debate over those, but I don't recall you saying anything either way.(?)

Those PS3 videos from last year's E3 are fake as fake can be - especially the Killzone video.

The recently released MGS4 PS3 video, while looking very good in it's own rights, has a noticeable downgrade in graphic quality when compared to that E3 Killzone video. So, when you compare the two, knowing that Hideo Kojima's MGS team has the chops to really "wow" you graphically, there is no way in hell that the hacks who developed Killzone could create a graphically superior title.

Then, when you consider that, according to internet speculation, both the PS3 and 360 have plenty of graphical muscle, but lack a similar boost in processing power in terms of AI, physics, and the like, then it REALLY lends credence to the opinion that the E3 Killzone video was definitely NOT representative of what the PS3 will actually be able to do. Maybe in cutscenes, but definitely NOT in actual gameplay.

[Mochan]

In terms of cutscenes, the PS2 could do the Killzone video. What is deficient in the PS3 in terms of physics and AI processing power? The kind of AI and physics we saw in the Killzone vid was doable on PCs 3 years ago (and we did see that kind of AI with all that onscreen action 3 years ago... in a game called Call of Duty!). I'm sure the PS3's processing power can handle that part of the equation at least.

The bigger consideration is the graphical mettle needed to pull those visuals off; there's a reason why both MS and Sony were concentrating on the GPUs.

[trebor]

In terms of cutscenes, the PS2 could do the Killzone video. What is deficient in the PS3 in terms of physics and AI processing power? The kind of AI and physics we saw in the Killzone vid was doable on PCs 3 years ago (and we did see that kind of AI with all that onscreen action 3 years ago... in a game called Call of Duty!). I'm sure the PS3's processing power can handle that part of the equation at least.

Nonsense. Based off of some articles I've read in the recent months, the processing power of the PS3/360 didn't get an equivalent boost in power as their graphic capabilities got.

[GameLegend]

Huh? FF8?



Final Fantasy 8 and 7 were known to show ads including ONLY CG images. Got people all pumped up for dreamcast graphics.
Speaking of which FF8 was launched the same day of Dreamcast.

The CG images didnt even tell u what kind of gameit was, just pretty graphics. I think every videogame commerial that shows CG images, should also show a little snipit of the actual gameplay.

[shogun]

You know honestly, these commercials never bothered me much. It was obvious that they were using CG...so obvious that I can't imagine videogame companies using them as some kinda of trick on the gaming community.

Anyone remember what in-game graphics were like when FF8 hit the market? Who in their right mind would have thought that PSX could pull off that CGI in real-time? Was Square putting some kinda of code on their disc that beams a supercomputer into your Playstation when you turn it on?

Ironically, now that graphics are improving to the point of approaching prerendered stuff, I think gamers have more of a case against companies that advertise using CGI. At least now they say they were tricked without coming across as complete idiots.

[GameLegend]

You know honestly, these commercials never bothered me much. It was obvious that they were using CG...so obvious that I can't imagine videogame companies using them as some kinda of trick on the gaming community.

Anyone remember what in-game graphics were like when FF8 hit the market? Who in their right mind would have thought that PSX could pull off that CGI in real-time? Was Square putting some kinda of code on their disc that beams a supercomputer into your Playstation when you turn it on?

Ironically, now that graphics are improving to the point of approaching prerendered stuff, I think gamers have more of a case against companies that advertise using CGI. At least now they say they were tricked without coming across as complete idiots.

See thats the thing. Who in the right mind at the time would think that? Not us. But possibly main stream gamers. I mean really, people cant SERIOUSLY be THAT dumb right? Well, if no one is going to fall for it, why did videogame publishers like square continue doing this for FF7 FF8...
I rmemeber seeing a Fantastic Four videogame commercial. The whole add just showed CG, not ONE second of gameplay, and my 11 year old cousin was all 'WOW'ed by the commerical. <--maybe cuz he liked that movie a lot, and now wants the game, or hes an idoit.

These commericals did bother me, because i knew there were naive individuals out there who would look at this and really consider purchasing the video game and that sickens me. Just like those diet pills that give the mantality that those diet drugs are a substitute for excersizing.

Whatever the reason, they've been doing this for a long time now, and u know what, it works, and it will continue to work.

[Gadfly2317]

See thats the thing. Who in the right mind at the time would think that? Not us. But possibly main stream gamers. I mean really, people cant SERIOUSLY be THAT dumb right? Well, if no one is going to fall for it, why did videogame publishers like square continue doing this for FF7 FF8...
I rmemeber seeing a Fantastic Four videogame commercial. The whole add just showed CG, not ONE second of gameplay, and my 11 year old cousin was all 'WOW'ed by the commerical. <--maybe cuz he liked that movie a lot, and now wants the game, or hes an idoit.


I don't consider it false--because the games actually feature these CG's. Now, if they showed CG's, but the game only had ugly graphics and no CG cutscenes, that would be false.

That would be the legal angle I would take for Activision's defense. They were showing part of what was included in the game--the best looking part. The commercial was an accurate portrayal of the game's cut-scenes. The way so many games are designed these days, the cut-scene (advancing the story) is like the "reward" you get after completing game goals, so the commercial was only showing the thing gamers play the game to achieve: the viewing of the CG scenes.

I don't get how a game maker is supposed to show "everything" in the commercial when no other type of business has to; car commercials don't show you standing at the gas-pump putting in $60 dollars a tank. They just show the pretty part of car ownership.

[trebor]

I don't consider it false--because the games actually feature these CG's. Now, if they showed CG's, but the game only had ugly graphics and no CG cutscenes, that would be false.

Yes, but what if a game has nice CG's and still has ugly graphics, then what?

Gamelegend brought up FFVIII for a reason - it's almost infamous because of the advertising vs actual gameplay was a huge difference in quality. Sure, it had those nice CG cutscenes, but it was 10 minutes of cutscenes out of an 80 hour game.



That would be the legal angle I would take for Activision's defense. They were showing part of what was included in the game--the best looking part. The commercial was an accurate portrayal of the game's cut-scenes.

Has this been verified? I don't even know for sure if the CGs in the commercials ARE actual cutscenes for the game, or if they were made specifically for the advertising.



I don't get how a game maker is supposed to show "everything" in the commercial when no other type of business has to; car commercials don't show you standing at the gas-pump putting in $60 dollars a tank. They just show the pretty part of car ownership.

Yeah but the majority of car commercials show clips of the car actually driving in areas - maybe areas that are unrealistic to drive in, but nonetheless.