Graphically Misleading Ads

[Section_Ei8ht]

from http://pc.ign.com/articles/690/690614p1.html

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.

I'm reminded of what EA was/is doing with Madden and what Sony did with Killzone 2. We as hardcore gamers and developers realize the difference between pre-rendered and gameplay shots, but unfortunatly, we are a minority.

Discuss. Who's right here? Activision or the ASA? It's understandable that eveyone in the industry does this to some extent, but to do it during the release of a next-gen system?

[D3ads]

Meh, I've seen said adverts and I would say they don't look as good as they do when you get them going on full whack, of course the PS2 version is automatically going to look balls anyway...

[Pericolos0]

i thought the cod2 ads were horrible CG and that the game felt much more realistic looking ingame

[Bic-B@ll]

i saw the cod commercials and i thought it was definitely bullshit, it's flat out lying. they show you cg ww2 footage when advertising a ww2 game which makes the viewer assume it's from the game, which it isn't it's obvious misinterpretation and something should be done about it.

[Izuno]

wow...i was literally about to post this...

1) It's funny, I think game marketers complain more about other game marketers using pre-rendered footage to hype games in TV ads. They'll say "I can't believe they used that! That's not even in-game!" Yet they'll go and do the same thing (often).

2) How much do consumers really complain about this? Are consumers harmed by this? That is a core issue that will be very tough to argue in court and I don't think it is going to be an easy one.

3) With improving graphics engines for top end games approaching quality of current pre rendered footage, this might be a dead issue soon if all game ad content is created using the game engine.

4) Funny, I don't recall any Grand Theft Auto 3, VC or SA ad using anything but in game footage.

I think this will be a dead issue in a year.

[Fletch]

Also, if you watch that Big Red One TV ad, you can hear Mikey screaming a line from BIA. Whoops.

[Ginger Lord]

Yeah I saw the advert and went, "Hmm..I sure didn't play that in the game!"

Bad Activision.

[Tequila]

The ads were Godawful, for sure. It was hard to tell the difference between the CoD ones and the BiA ones, such was the level of mediocrity; hardly representative of the respective games, and hardly making for good television.

[Izuno]

The ads were Godawful, for sure. It was hard to tell the difference between the CoD ones and the BiA ones, such was the level of mediocrity; hardly representative of the respective games, and hardly making for good television.

That's interesting...if "core" gamers can't tell difference between the two, then it makes you wonder how much they are differentiating the products from each other to more mass market gamers.

[Fletch]

The ads were Godawful, for sure. It was hard to tell the difference between the CoD ones and the BiA ones, such was the level of mediocrity; hardly representative of the respective games, and hardly making for good television.

Same advertising group made them both. Which is also why Mikey's BIA audio sample appears in the COD commerical.

[Tequila]

The ads were Godawful, for sure. It was hard to tell the difference between the CoD ones and the BiA ones, such was the level of mediocrity; hardly representative of the respective games, and hardly making for good television.

Same advertising group made them both. Which is also why Mikey's BIA audio sample appears in the COD commerical.

That's FUBAR.

Arf.

[mike-0]

i hate when companies fake this shit.

[Izuno]

The ads were Godawful, for sure. It was hard to tell the difference between the CoD ones and the BiA ones, such was the level of mediocrity; hardly representative of the respective games, and hardly making for good television.

Same advertising group made them both. Which is also why Mikey's BIA audio sample appears in the COD commerical.

lol...wonder which agency it was...

[IR]

with in the dutch law system i believe, making comercials that make the product seem nicer then it actually is, is ofcourse illigal, at the same time however they also have this commen sence part were, for instance if its really clear that the product would never be able to do that which is shown and the form of the comercial is more sugestive then real then it is allowed,

to round this down, how apperent is it to people that what activision is showing is not what the product looks like. that is, how apperent is it to the people that see the comercial and are more main stream, im mean its a totally diffrent audience then the people that look for games on websites like gamespot or read game mags, i think there in is were the problem lies, the adience theyre trying to reach with these tv adds are in fact those people that will not easily recognize the "fake" form ingame

its a totally diffrent story if you would have a "fake" trailer on a gamewebsite, but the funny part is they wouldnt do that because the people that go to these websites dont fall for the fake,

so in my believes, showing only fake with no hint of actual gameplay, is unacceptable. for the audience theyre trying to reach and the fact that they wont even try to pull this on game websites says enough that theyre clearly trying to get unaware people to buy theyre product that is nowhere near capable of what theyre showing

[mikezilla]

interesting counterpoints:

call of duty finest hour was one of the first games to outright do this and it sold a bazillion copies.

they did it again and sold a bazillion copies.

bitch all you want, they'll do it again.