I am sick of this

[ME BIGGD01]

Holy SH1t, I am pissed off. I just installed the demo of Age of Empires III. Not at the game but at the ad that pops up saying the game runs great on a Pentium 4. I find this misleading to people who don't know better. I am sick of seeing advertisements in games. What the F? this is not pogo for Christ sakes. We pay for these games. They did the same the same thing on Medal of Honor Pacific Assault. I f'ing paid 60 bucks for that crappy game that took months to patch (sounds like battlefield 2 doesnt it both from the same company) and I have to see an ad/commerical as if they did not make enough off the game.

Now although this is just a demo, I am sure it will be in the final release. I feel people should get the game for free since they already made money on the ad/commercial. You see they are now selling commercials in your games that you have no choice to look at. Like the movies, you have to sit there looking at F'ing commercials before the movie you just wasted 10 bucks on. This is an outrage and should not be accepted. Not only is the commercial misleading, it's bull****.

I will not buy this game or pay for it in words you may understand if I have to see an ad;) .

Next you will will have to see ad's commercials on toilet paper every time you have to wipe your ass.

[ME BIGGD01]

I also will challenge anyone that believes there P4 SYSTEM can offer better performance then my current AMD64 SYSTEM. I will wage anything on that.

[SALvation]

I bet you can't wait for the in-game ads that are on the horizon. :)

[OUTLAWS high ping camper]

Next you will will have to see ad's commercials on toilet paper every time you have to wipe your ass.

*hpc runs to patent office..

[EXEcution]

Hah! I have no problem with advertising in games. Some CS servers have billboards of their clan website/logo posted on the walls of maps. It's also a good way for the general public to make some 'genera' connections with the games they play and the hardware that supports those games. If you play the game and can have fun for extended periods of time then even an ad or two shouldn't be able to stop you from having fun.

However, I very rarely watch TV anymore mostly because of the commercials and the fact that nothing good is usually on. When we had Comcast Digital Cable for a low cost we were forced to see like 5 minutes worth of commercials after every like 15 minutes of watching a show or movie. So continuing to pay about 100$ a month for watching mostly crap with commercials in between didn't seem like a good inverstment to me.

Gaming doesn't work quite like watching TV and a commercial popping up on the screen while you play WOULD seem pretty ludicrous. So as long as the gameplay goes by uninterrupted I have no problem. But fragging a Coke machine in Serious Sam 2 would be another story...

[ME BIGGD01]

if you think paying 50 bucks for game that probably need patches for 3 months or better and seeing ads/commercials is ok, you go right ahead. i think they are taking full advantage of every market that will only justify warez like the music/movie industry.

if the game were half the price i would be ok with it because the ad is paying for some of it but games will get higher in price and we will apy and still watch the bs.

[ME BIGGD01]

i hope they have laws that will make any advertiser who makes money on a product through advertising and is held liable for anything that product does wrong.


for an example, if the P4 caused canser or we find out a year later it does, the companies that advertised it should be held accountable if they money from the ad. this goes for every ad as i used the P4 as an example.

[EXEcution]

if you think paying 50 bucks for game that probably need patches for 3 months or better and seeing ads/commercials is ok, you go right ahead. i think they are taking full advantage of every market that will only justify warez like the music/movie industry.

What popular PC game doesn't have several patches released? I think that it's good that game companies actually adress the issues and fix the bugs that they've missed during testing an whatnot. Fifty bucks is arguable, becuase unless you buy the game the week or day it comes out chances are that it will cost 40-50$. But after a month or several weeks there are usually online or in-store deals that take off a good fraction of the price. I think that 30-40$ is a price worth paying for a quality shooter with online and single play when it first comes out. As for games getting higher in price in the future, they will probably offer alot more entertainment and have a much higher replay value than the games today, so they would be worth the price.

[GOTHIKO]

yea when im pissed and i see an add pop out while tryin to play a game....well :D.... other then that, ill just get a burnt copy :P

[ME BIGGD01]

What popular PC game doesn't have several patches released? I think that it's good that game companies actually adress the issues and fix the bugs that they've missed during testing an whatnot. Fifty bucks is arguable, becuase unless you buy the game the week or day it comes out chances are that it will cost 40-50$. But after a month or several weeks there are usually online or in-store deals that take off a good fraction of the price. I think that 30-40$ is a price worth paying for a quality shooter with online and single play when it first comes out. As for games getting higher in price in the future, they will probably offer alot more entertainment and have a much higher replay value than the games today, so they would be worth the price.
ok lets take battlefield2 for example. the game is 50 bucks and has many flaws. a patch is supposed to fix these flaws but they didnt it the last patch. let's not mix up between a patch that fixes one issue with a patch that fixes the game. you may be easy on a company that releases a game that is not finished but i find the company to be selling beta products. it has come way to common for these companies to release games befor ethey are finished.

[BobtheCkroach]

Next you will will have to see ad's commercials on toilet paper every time you have to wipe your ass.

Spaceballs, The Toilet Paper.

In any case, I'm wondering how come we've never heard you complain about the NVidia TWIMTBP series?

Now I'm not saying anything either way - I like NVidia and I don't like Intel, but the NVidia ads at the beginning are in nearly everything by now - why no complaints there?

If you get mad b/c you feel like you're already being robbed, and then on top of that you feel like this ad is being whored onto you, i can respect that. I know a guy at school that complains about this kind of stuff, literally yells "Product Placement" when he sees it, and then complains about the evils of society. That's just stupid, in my mind. As long as it's not in the game play (IE - "Your quest is to race to the P4 icon, and get back") I don't mind it. It's just a picture.

[ME BIGGD01]

i was waiting for something in that respect and there is a very clear answer to it. when you see nvidia's ad there which it's not really an add but showing the game was optimized for the shaders that ati does not have. when a game is using the latest and greatest shader technology such as shader 3, there is only nvidia that supports it. this is not the case with using intel or amd for that matter. both cpu's pretty much use the same stuff. if intel was definetly the better chip then there would be no argument from me. the world knows that amd is a better gaming chip, uses less power, and is optimized for gaming. there is no special coding written for them though in the game for either company that one another doesnt have. it's a big difference between a logo and a commerical. now if that screen print i posted said runs best on a p4, that would be a different case because that would mean it was specificaly wriiten for the p4 in which wouldnt matter since the a64 line would still outperform it.

[BobtheCkroach]

i was waiting for something in that respect and there is a very clear answer to it. when you see nvidia's ad there which it's not really an add but showing the game was optimized for the shaders that ati does not have. when a game is using the latest and greatest shader technology such as shader 3, there is only nvidia that supports it. this is not the case with using intel or amd for that matter. both cpu's pretty much use the same stuff. if intel was definetly the better chip then there would be no argument from me. the world knows that amd is a better gaming chip, uses less power, and is optimized for gaming. there is no special coding written for them though in the game for either company that one another doesnt have. it's a big difference between a logo and a commerical. now if that screen print i posted said runs best on a p4, that would be a different case because that would mean it was specificaly wriiten for the p4 in which wouldnt matter since the a64 line would still outperform it.

That makes sense. Now go read and reply to the "Yo Bigg! thread in HW...:D I've been waiting :P

[ME BIGGD01]

ok:) will go now:D