EA warns of spyware in their games......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just when you think EA can't get worse, they decide to start doing this.......

http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=13049860

So. In the latest CGW podcast, they received retail boxed copies of BF 2142.

When you open the box, a big slip of paper falls out first, preceeding any discs or manuals. The slip of paper says, essentially, that 2142 includes monitoring software which runs while your computer is online, and records "anonymous" information like your IP address, surfing habits (probably via cookie scans), and other "computing habits" in order to report this information back to ad companies and ad servers, which generates in-game ads.

Now, I can live with certain in-game ads (though apparently there will be Dodge truck and Neon ads in the bleak, futuristic world of 2142), but including a lengthy description - outside of even the Eula - seems to indicate even EA knows that this is some shady borderline spyware shit. I don't support it and won't be buying 2142 (for a host of other reasons, too).

Ummmm, hello? So now I'm going to have EA servers constantly monitoring my web surfing and other habits in order to put advertisements in my games? How desparate are these guys for money? Worse yet, the warning is inside the box, so once you get the chance to read it, you've already broken the seal on the box and can't return it if you don't like the policy. How convienent.

[Maple Leafs]

Is there a simple way to turn this "feature" off?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Is there a simple way to turn this "feature" off?

No, that's the whole point of the warning. It specifically states that once you break the seal on the software, you are agreeing to the specific clause. It's basically part of the EULA agreement in this specific situation.

If EA decided to plaster 'Diet Coke' or 'Valvoline' advertisements all over the game without infringing on what was going on regarding my web browsing habits, I wouldn't have a problem with it. What they are doing in this case is no different than the adware that infects computers. They're harvesting data off your computer and using it to their advantage. Not only that, but you're paying them to do it by buying their software.

[QuikSand]

We need Antmeister on this. It begs for a parody song.

I'm thinking Randy Newman..."We Love It!"... work with me.

[hhiipp]

Yeah there is, don't play it.

[Bee]

I wonder if there are pr0n advertisers, because otherwise I don't know what they'll find in my surfing habits to decide what ads to show.

[MJ4H]

I haven't for a long time because of the consistently poor quality of the game play, but this seals that I will definitely never buy another EA Sports game.

[Draft Dodger]

Is there a simple way to turn this "feature" off?

sure.
step 1) don't buy it.

hope that helps.

[wade moore]

Aight, so.. I'm an avid player of Battlefield 2. So, on the server I play the message board is just lit up with people complaining about this.

From the details I've read, this is really much ado about nothing.

What they are tracking is your viewing habits while PLAYING THE GAME. It is not tracking your everyday web habits, but it is tracking the viewing of ads within the game.

Personally, I see no problem with this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

From the details I've read, this is really much ado about nothing.

What they are tracking is your viewing habits while PLAYING THE GAME. It is not tracking your everyday web habits, but it is tracking the viewing of ads within the game.

No, it specifically checks the cookies on your system and 'computing habits' (which is code for a vague phrase that allows them a lot of leeway). If you think that the server only connects when you are playing the game, you are fooling yourself in an immense way. It's one thing if you don't mind it, but it's another thing if you deny what is listed in the EULA.

[mrsimperless]

I wonder if there are pr0n advertisers, because otherwise I don't know what they'll find in my surfing habits to decide what ads to show.

Word.

So have you never had wet dream either? Dammit, we need a poll for this kind of stuff.

[wade moore]

No, it specifically checks the cookies on your system and 'computing habits' (which is code for a vague phrase that allows them a lot of leeway). If you think that the server only connects when you are playing the game, you are fooling yourself in an immense way. It's one thing if you don't mind it, but it's another thing if you deny what is listed in the EULA.

From the disclaimer:

"The Software may incorporate technology developed by IGA Worldwide Inc. ("IGA") (the "Advertising Technology"). The purpose of the Advertising TEchnology is to deliver in-game advertisements to you when you use the Software while connected to the Internet. When you use the Software while connected ot the Internet, the Advertising Technlogy may record your IP address and other anonymouse information ("Advertising Data"). The Advertising Data is temporarily used by IGA to enable the presentation and measurement of in-game advertisements and other in-game objects which are uploaded temporarily to your personal computer or game console and changed during online game play. The Advertising Technology does not collect any personally identifiable information about you, and EA will ont provide IGA with any of your personally identifiable information. The servers used by the Advertising Technology may, from time to time, be located outside your country of residence. If you are located within the European Union, the servers may be located outside the EU.

By installing and using the Software, you agree to: (i) the transfer of the Advertising Data to servers located outside your country of residence and, if applicable, outside the European Union; (ii)the collection and use of the Advertising Data as described in this Section; and (iii) the delivery of advertising and marketing content by the Advertising Technology. IF YOU DO NOT WANT IGA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, OR TRANSMIT THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, DO NOT INSTALL OR PLAY THE SOFTWARE ON ANY PLATFORM THAT IS USED TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET."

Granted, as you can tell, this is a copy of the one from Europe, but my understanding is the US one is the same.

There's nothing I see in this that gives me heartburn personally.

[stevew]

Those motorized walkers in BF2142 are basically unfair anyways. So I wasn't planning on buying it anyways.

[wade moore]

Those motorized walkers in BF2142 are basically unfair anyways. So I wasn't planning on buying it anyways.

I don't know if I'll buy it yet. I really don't get into the futuristic theme, even if it is somewhat "realistic future". But if all of the people I play BF2 with dissapear and go play BF2142 I may follow like a sheep.

Do you play BF2? Where do you play?

[stevew]

Nah, I don't play BF2. I was trying out the new one though, and I'm just so horribly bad at it that it basically isn't fun for me. And those walkers, it's like you hit them with a million rounds and then they just turn around and pwn you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's nothing I see in this that gives me heartburn personally.

There's two things that should give you quite a bit of heartburn just in what you put up from the Europe EULA......

The servers used by the Advertising Technology may, from time to time, be located outside your country of residence. If you are located within the European Union, the servers may be located outside the EU.

By installing and using the Software, you agree to: (i) the transfer of the Advertising Data to servers located outside your country of residence and, if applicable, outside the European Union; (ii)the collection and use of the Advertising Data as described in this Section; and (iii) the delivery of advertising and marketing content by the Advertising Technology. IF YOU DO NOT WANT IGA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, OR TRANSMIT THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, DO NOT INSTALL OR PLAY THE SOFTWARE ON ANY PLATFORM THAT IS USED TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET."

1. Servers outside the specific country are never a good thing from a privacy standpoint. They don't isolate where the servers are located, hence, you don't know how specific laws/standards are applied in the location where the servers are based. Very dicey situation.

2. Their option for avoiding the invasion of privacy is to not install the software on a computer with an internet connection. Well, thank God they gave you that option. That should make it really easy on the customer.

FWIW......the game has not been getting good reviews and the invasion of privacy situation has brought a lot of negative press to EA and the game, so I'm not terribly concerned that they'll do anything quite this stupid in the future. However, this is EA. Anything is possible.........

[wade moore]

Meh... so what if some advertising company knows I refresh FOFC 5,000,000 times a day? I just don't get upset over this personally.

I know some people do, but I don't. That being said, I still interpret this to mean that it is not tracking your outside of game habits, but your in-game habits.

[Samdari]

It should not be that difficult to fool the game into thinking that you are not connected to the internet by blocking the port it is on.

Still, I won't be buying any EA games until they cease this practice.

[Maple Leafs]

The odd thing is that many people react to any advertising by saying "I don't care about any of that, I don't want to see that stuff unless it's something I'm interested in!" But when companies try to serve up ads based on what little they may know about you, we get upset and cry "privacy!"

Which isn't to say it's not a valid complaint, since there are some privacy implications here. That's why EA should have a simple way to turn this off, permanently. If they didn't built that in then they're not playing fair. Not to mention whether it's really appropriate to put ads in a full price game to begin with.

But I do find that people's reactions to advertising does run in circles sometimes.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Just when you think EA can't get worse, they decide to start doing this.......

http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=13049860



Ummmm, hello? So now I'm going to have EA servers constantly monitoring my web surfing and other habits in order to put advertisements in my games? How desparate are these guys for money? Worse yet, the warning is inside the box, so once you get the chance to read it, you've already broken the seal on the box and can't return it if you don't like the policy. How convienent.
EA ate your baby?

[rkmsuf]

EA ate your baby?

Guy has a serious hard on for EA.

[wade moore]

Guy has a serious hard on for EA.

yup.

[Bee]

Well, there are a lot of people who are pretty upset about this on other forums. I'm like wade, it doesn't bother me but I can see where it would bother some people.

BTW, what about those who have a wife that surfs shoe stores online...will they be getting a bunch of shoe ads? That would suck.

[wade moore]

Well, there are a lot of people who are pretty upset about this on other forums. I'm like wade, it doesn't bother me but I can see where it would bother some people.

BTW, what about those who have a wife that surfs shoe stores online...will they be getting a bunch of shoe ads? That would suck.

Yeah, like I was saying, I first heard about this on a Battlefield forum.

Mizzou B-Ball just seems to hunt for anything to trash EA, seems to be a bit "overdoing" it if you know what i'm sayin... *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

[sachmo71]

Well, there are a lot of people who are pretty upset about this on other forums. I'm like wade, it doesn't bother me but I can see where it would bother some people.

BTW, what about those who have a wife that surfs shoe stores online...will they be getting a bunch of shoe ads? That would suck.

What bothers me about this whole thing is that EA is going to be able to charge companies to target ads to my specific browsing habits. It's not so much the privacy aspects, but the greed factor. Yes, they get paid by advertisers when they plaster their logos in the virtual hockey rink in my NHL video game. I accept that. But to generate a constant revenue stream from this, for each year I play this game, just doesn't sit right with me. If they knock $20 off the game, or even send me a check for $1.00 for each 10 different advertisers they get because of my data, then I'd be cool with it.

Or an option to turn this off. :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah, like I was saying, I first heard about this on a Battlefield forum.

Mizzou B-Ball just seems to hunt for anything to trash EA, seems to be a bit "overdoing" it if you know what i'm sayin... *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

I would do the exact same thing if another company was implementing this kind or practice. EA has gone out of its way to allow plenty of ammunition for these kinds of threads lately. It's not a good sign.

I was just as vocal about the software that was installed on computers by Sony and Starforce without the knowledge of the user. Honestly, if it weren't for the outrage about those two situations, EA probably wouldn't have even bothered to disclose this much about the software and what they were doing regarding the advertising. EA and other gaming companies will play dumb as long as you'll let them do so.

[AgustusM]

I don't even know what this game is so this doesn't affect me at all, but the fact of the matter is that software that makes calls outside your computer that you are not allowed to turn off is spyware plain and simple.

If it is in there and there is an option to turn it off, fine but if you can't turn it off it has no business being in there. Remember the Steve Gibson motto "don't mess with MY machine"

[rkmsuf]

sure.
step 1) don't buy it.

hope that helps.


I think this is all that is needed in this thread.

[wade moore]

I don't even know what this game is so this doesn't affect me at all, but the fact of the matter is that software that makes calls outside your computer that you are not allowed to turn off is spyware plain and simple.

If it is in there and there is an option to turn it off, fine but if you can't turn it off it has no business being in there. Remember the Steve Gibson motto "don't mess with MY machine"

It's an online game.

You're making calls outside your computer by connecting online.

They're merely gathering data on what you're doing when you're online in their game.

Whatever. People just get all riled up over nothing.

Again I say - do you get upset that ESPN.com analyzes what ads you click on on their page? This is NO different.

[Maple Leafs]

Again I say - do you get upset that ESPN.com analyzes what ads you click on on their page? This is NO different.
Actually, lots of people really do get upset about that. Usually the same folks who surf with all their cookies turned off even though they're not sure why.

[wade moore]

Actually, lots of people really do get upset about that. Usually the same folks who surf with all their cookies turned off even though they're not sure why.

I just live in a different world than these people.

[sachmo71]

It's an online game.

You're making calls outside your computer by connecting online.

They're merely gathering data on what you're doing when you're online in their game.

Whatever. People just get all riled up over nothing.

Again I say - do you get upset that ESPN.com analyzes what ads you click on on their page? This is NO different.

There is a vast difference between active and passive data collection. ESPN recording clicks is passive. Reading your cookies to learn your browsing habits is active.

[Bee]

They're merely gathering data on what you're doing when you're online in their game.



Just for the record, I don't read the EULA quite the same way. I read it that it records the data to their servers while you're online in the game and uses that data to generate ads. My guess is the data it's gathering is not limited to when you're online in their game.

[Subby]

Privacy is a slippery slope.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just for the record, I don't read the EULA quite the same way. I read it that it records the data to their servers while you're online in the game and uses that data to generate ads. My guess is the data it's gathering is not limited to when you're online in their game.

Absolutely. Wade's thought that it only collects info about your gaming in the specific game makes no sense. If that were the case, you would only receive ads in the game promoting BF 2142 or guns or advanced warfare. There are ads in the game that are unrelated to the game itself. EA is checking the cookies when the game is played on a internet-connected computer. But the assumption that they are only collecting game-specific information is simply naive.

[Samdari]

They're merely gathering data on what you're doing when you're online in their game.

You are in a pretty small minority (like, just you) in this opinion. Yet you state it as fact.

[ice4277]

I am reading this thread and staring at a banner ad for BF2142 at the top of the page. Classic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, just from reading what's been posted in this thread, it appears to me that the active transfer of data -- both inbound in the form of new ads that appear in the game & outbound in the form of your web habits and/or other information -- is what is limited to the time that you're playing. Nothing I've seen would make me think that the information being collected is only coming from the time you spend online while playing (which is what I think some were saying up the thread).

Basically, they're going to mine your computer for any information they can get about your demographic niche (via your surfing habits for example) & then they'll tailor the ads that you see based on that information. It's basically ad-ware that you've paid for the privilege of installing on your computer, albeit one that serves ads in a format different than the usual pop-up/pop-under style.

In addition to the role it will play in determining what ads are sent to you while playing, I can almost guarantee that any information EA captures will be used to further target their online ad spending; i.e. if they see a bazillion cookies for gamespy, then they're probably going to spend more dollars on advertising their next similar game on gamespy. Likewise, if they see fewer cookies for gaming sites (or sports sites or whatever) than they expect but instead see 50% of the players with cookies for cnn.com, they would shift money in that direction for the next ad campaign.

[Bee]

So EA will be advertising heavy on the pr0n sites in the near future? ;)

[Mustang]

I said this 3-4 months ago.. spoooooky... oooooooooooo


hxxp://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209837&postcount=14

[Deattribution]

Again I say - do you get upset that ESPN.com analyzes what ads you click on on their page? This is NO different.

There is a huge difference, I'm not paying $49.99 for espn.com. Beyond the fact that they're using programs to collect data is the fact that they are collecting money on products I've already paid for in full. That's bs, there is no other company that does that.

If they were giving away the game for free, that would be completely understandable, but they're not.

The EULA is really too vague to say whether they're collecting it 24/7 or just while the software is running, and really as long as you have it installed they are covered.

Mizzou does post alot of ea stuff, but this is one I appreciate because
I'd of probably not noticed it before hand and ended up purchasing this garbage.

[Deattribution]

I said this 3-4 months ago.. spoooooky... oooooooooooo


hxxp://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209837&postcount=14

When did we have to start xxping our own site? :)

[Mustang]

When did we have to start xxping our own site? :)

:D

Habit...

[wade moore]

You are in a pretty small minority (like, just you) in this opinion. Yet you state it as fact.

My apologies, I missed pasting one piece of info.

Many of you will say this means crap, but whatever...

From a member of the DICE development team on their own message board. (DICE actually made the game, EA is distributing it and bought DICE about a month ago)


Originally Posted by [DICE]CKMC http://www.totalbf2142.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.totalbf2142.com/forums/showthread.php?p=66802#post66802)
Data will only be gathered from in game. Web browsing and other profiling data is not being gathered.

Squib has essentially nailed it. The purpose of the gathering is to determine if an ad is viewed by players.

[wade moore]

There is a huge difference, I'm not paying $49.99 for espn.com. Beyond the fact that they're using programs to collect data is the fact that they are collecting money on products I've already paid for in full. That's bs, there is no other company that does that.

If they were giving away the game for free, that would be completely understandable, but they're not.


So when you play NHL 2k7 there aren't ads on the boards fo the rink? When you play Gran Turismo you don't drive the Dodge Viper? I could come up with a ton more examples.

This is a bit of a naive statement.

[Deattribution]

So when you play NHL 2k7 there aren't ads on the boards fo the rink? When you play Gran Turismo you don't drive the Dodge Viper? I could come up with a ton more examples.

This is a bit of a naive statement.

Do they collect data on consoles? no.

Are those ads interactive? no.

Do any of those games come with an EULA for their advertisements? no. why? because they don't need one, if anything they add to the experience.

And I hardly call using a Dodge Viper in a racing game advertisement. It is subtlely, but I don't think you'll get a complaint. When you start adding obtrusive ads that are dynamic then it's no longer subtle. If that's the best you can muster up I'd say you have no need to even be in this thread.

[wade moore]

Do they collect data on consoles? no.

Are those ads interactive? no.

Do any of those games come with an EULA for their advertisements? no. why? because they don't need one, if anything they add to the experience.

And I hardly call using a Dodge Viper in a racing game advertisement. It is subtlely, but I don't think you'll get a complaint. When you start adding obtrusive ads that are dynamic then it's no longer subtle. If that's the best you can muster up I'd say you have no need to even be in this thread.

You specifically said

Beyond the fact that they're using programs to collect data is the fact that they are collecting money on products I've already paid for in full. That's bs, there is no other company that does that.

That is completely untrue. Both of the things I mentione dare CLEARLY companies collecting money on products that you've paid already in full on. I can come up with 100's of others from 100's of other games and MANY companies.

You're just changing the argument now because I proved you wrong. In your post you specifically said you were upset about them making money even beyond them collecting data.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So when you play NHL 2k7 there aren't ads on the boards fo the rink? When you play Gran Turismo you don't drive the Dodge Viper? I could come up with a ton more examples.

This is a bit of a naive statement.

You're totally missing the point. In one of my initial points, I stated that this wasn't a problem at all. The advertisements that are in the NHL2K7 game are already paid for when that company gives money to Sega. That game is not checking your cookies for your browsing habits and changing those billboards according to what you like. The same ads are displayed in the same places every time in the game.

As far as Gran Turismo, that is a licensed product. Sony paid to be able to show that (or any other car) in the game. The cars available do not change based on your browser cookies. If that were the case, you could draw a parallel, but it's not.

[wade moore]

My apologies, I missed pasting one piece of info.

Many of you will say this means crap, but whatever...

From a member of the DICE development team on their own message board. (DICE actually made the game, EA is distributing it and bought DICE about a month ago)




[/i]

Anyone interested in the entire thread on TOTALBF2.com - hxxp://www.totalbf2142.com/forums/sh...?t=4180&page=2 (http://www.totalbf2142.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4180&page=2)

[wade moore]

You're totally missing the point. In one of my initial points, I stated that this wasn't a problem at all. The advertisements that are in the NHL2K7 game are already paid for when that company gives money to Sega. That game is not checking your cookies for your browsing habits and changing those billboards according to what you like. The same ads are displayed in the same places every time in the game.

As far as Gran Turismo, that is a licensed product. Sony paid to be able to show that (or any other car) in the game. The cars available do not change based on your browser cookies. If that were the case, you could draw a parallel, but it's not.

I was specifically addressing Deattribution's statement that no other companies earn money on a game that you've paid for in full. Maybe I'm wrong on the Gran Turismo one, but NHL2k7 and others are getting paid for their ads. I'm sure some of them have clauses based around # of games sold, etc.

Fact is, the idea of earning money via in-game advertisements has been going on for years. To pin that label on EA for this game is just silly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Data will only be gathered from in game.
[/I]

IF that's true, then all this would seem to be is a method of quantifying the number of ads served by the game (such as for proof of performance for the advertisers). The thing that makes this limitation hard for me to believe is that they could already provide that info from the server side without ever collecting data from the user side.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I was specifically addressing Deattribution's statement that no other companies earn money on a game that you've paid for in full. Maybe I'm wrong on the Gran Turismo one, but NHL2k7 and others are getting paid for their ads. I'm sure some of them have clauses based around # of games sold, etc.

Fact is, the idea of earning money via in-game advertisements has been going on for years. To pin that label on EA for this game is just silly.

Yes, the game maker is being paid an upfront cost for the advertising before they actually make the game. In addition, some agreements allow for a per copy cost (i.e. the advertiser has to pay more as the number of units sold goes up). That's a totally different situation than the one that we are discussing in this thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mizzou -- whether anybody else has done this should be far less disconcerting to you than the fact that EA is only (possibly) the first. If anybody thinks this isn't something that's going to be used as widely as possible by as many companies as possible then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell them.

[Deattribution]

You specifically said



That is completely untrue. Both of the things I mentione dare CLEARLY companies collecting money on products that you've paid already in full on. I can come up with 100's of others from 100's of other games and MANY companies.

You're just changing the argument now because I proved you wrong. In your post you specifically said you were upset about them making money even beyond them collecting data.

I'm well aware of what I said, but obviously it was misunderstood (probably my fault on wording) as the purpose of it was to say not only are they collecting data but they are using it to make money. No other company collects information on a game you just purchased to resell.

I know other companies use in game advertisements, infact I've never had an issue with any of the others, including EA's use in college football of old spice redzone and 2K's Toyota stuf ect, as it adds a realistic touch.

I don't see much use in a FPS, even more less based in 2142 but whatever, if they want to throw up a few billboards with random ads, fine. When you start putting ads based on what I like, you aren't trying to add to the game experience while making a little cash anymore, you're trying to use the game as a platform to sell me more garbage.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Mizzou -- whether anybody else has done this should be far less disconcerting to you than the fact that EA is only (possibly) the first. If anybody thinks this isn't something that's going to be used as widely as possible by as many companies as possible then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell them.

That's probably going to be an issue. For the same reason that Sony and Starforce got run over, EA is going to have some issues if it continues this practice. I don't have any doubt that they will try. But there have already been some court cases against Sony and Starforce for similar practices. I'm sure that EA's response in this specific case will be that they put a warning notice in the game, so it's OK. But it could easily be argued that because of the way it's handled being bundled inside the box, that the consumer wasn't given full disclosure until after the purchase was made.

In addition, with the ever-tightening return rules in most stores, the consumer who doesn't want this adware on their computer but wants to play the game may be left in a situation where they have little chance to return the game because the seal has already been broken. It's pretty obvious that it is far from customer friendly and the last thing EA needs is more bad publicity.

[sachmo71]

I was specifically addressing Deattribution's statement that no other companies earn money on a game that you've paid for in full. Maybe I'm wrong on the Gran Turismo one, but NHL2k7 and others are getting paid for their ads. I'm sure some of them have clauses based around # of games sold, etc.

Fact is, the idea of earning money via in-game advertisements has been going on for years. To pin that label on EA for this game is just silly.

this is true, but what happens in this game is new territory. it seems that they want to track whether you click on an add in-game, if I'm reading the comments from teh development team right. this doesn't tell me what happens with that data, so I can't be sure if they are going to make a steady income changing partners on a regular basis. it doesn't really matter, though.
they want to track the ads click-thoughs. if they aren't making a steady profit from that alone, I'll eat my hat. it seems like a bit too much for me.

*shrug*

[sachmo71]

That's probably going to be an issue. For the same reason that Sony and Starforce got run over, EA is going to have some issues if it continues this practice. I don't have any doubt that they will try. But there have already been some court cases against Sony and Starforce for similar practices. I'm sure that EA's response in this specific case will be that they put a warning notice in the game, so it's OK. But it could easily be argued that because of the way it's handled being bundled inside the box, that the consumer wasn't given full disclosure until after the purchase was made.

In addition, with the ever-tightening return rules in most stores, the consumer who doesn't want this adware on their computer but wants to play the game may be left in a situation where they have little chance to return the game because the seal has already been broken. It's pretty obvious that it is far from customer friendly and the last thing EA needs is more bad publicity.

i wonder if this was just the brainchild of some hotshot PM who thought it would be a big "win" for EA. that's usually the way this things pop up, rather than a company wide initiative. if the backlash is bad enough, this will (hopefully) go the way of the buffalo.

[wade moore]

IF that's true, then all this would seem to be is a method of quantifying the number of ads served by the game (such as for proof of performance for the advertisers). The thing that makes this limitation hard for me to believe is that they could already provide that info from the server side without ever collecting data from the user side.

I'm assuming it's true... (yes, i'm naive)...

And, assuming it's true, I think it would be pretty dumb NOT to track the views of their ads.

My interpretation is that it doesn't work the way you're thinking it does. That the ads are not "served" on the server the way that you're thinking. That somehow they're loaded onto your PC when the map starts (this is how most things are done in the game, it loads in a bunch of server, map, rules, etc info when you load a new map) which would include the ads for that map. Then, this program they have will analyze which of these ads you look at (or click-through if that does exist).

All of that being said, I think there is a lot more hurting this release than this problem. Questionable patching tactics in Battlefield2, Server load issues, and a perception that this is practically a mod for Battlefield2 are among those issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That the ads are not "served" on the server the way that you're thinking. That somehow they're loaded onto your PC when the map starts (this is how most things are done in the game, it loads in a bunch of server, map, rules, etc info when you load a new map) which would include the ads for that map. Then, this program they have will analyze which of these ads you look at (or click-through if that does exist).

I wondered about that, but got the impression somewhere up the thread that the game essentially sends you fresh ads (or repeats of the same ad), something about the ads being temporarily stored on your pc, which means they have to re-serve them each time you play. That's the point where I figure they could easily count "ads served". Now click-throughs, that's a little different animal, although one easily managed by having an alternate URL for the clicks (which is then counted on the server side as well).

Minus the collection of some demographic data, I'm not seeing a benefit of using user-side collection as outweighing the potential negatives. One thought along that path -- maybe EA is collecting the demographic details from some "user registration" function and then aggregating it to excise the identifying marks for their advertisers. Maybe some cookie/setting/something that connects your pc to your registration data, and then matches it up with the ads that you were served. Something along those lines would seem to meet the terms of the EULA (no individual identifying info to the advertisers, etc) while still providing the valuable demographic info to both EA and their sponsors.

All of that being said, I think there is a lot more hurting this release than this problem. Questionable patching tactics in Battlefield2, Server load issues, and a perception that this is practically a mod for Battlefield2 are among those issues.[/QUOTE]

[Bee]

Well, despite what the guy from DICE said I would still be skeptical that they're going to limit it like that. The EULA doesn't include that limitation IMO and so EA can do what they want and DICE isn't the one who's developed this "advertising technology". The first thing that came to my mind when reading the DICE guys post was in 6 months they can say "we didn't know that EA was going to do that and we didn't write that code". Anyway, doesn't matter to me since either way it wouldn't really bother me personally and the game doesn't look like one I'd buy in any case.

[wade moore]

I wondered about that, but got the impression somewhere up the thread that the game essentially sends you fresh ads (or repeats of the same ad), something about the ads being temporarily stored on your pc, which means they have to re-serve them each time you play. That's the point where I figure they could easily count "ads served". Now click-throughs, that's a little different animal, although one easily managed by having an alternate URL for the clicks (which is then counted on the server side as well).

Minus the collection of some demographic data, I'm not seeing a benefit of using user-side collection as outweighing the potential negatives. One thought along that path -- maybe EA is collecting the demographic details from some "user registration" function and then aggregating it to excise the identifying marks for their advertisers. Maybe some cookie/setting/something that connects your pc to your registration data, and then matches it up with the ads that you were served. Something along those lines would seem to meet the terms of the EULA (no individual identifying info to the advertisers, etc) while still providing the valuable demographic info to both EA and their sponsors.

All of that being said, I think there is a lot more hurting this release than this problem. Questionable patching tactics in Battlefield2, Server load issues, and a perception that this is practically a mod for Battlefield2 are among those issues.

I know we're going way off path here, but.. FWIW, the way the game works in general...


You have a userid and login to login into the game.

You log in.

Then you can search for servers (not run by EA, but rather run by individuals that choose to run servers). The servers are ranked or not ranked, we'll deal with ranked.

You log into a ranked server. It then does a "connecting" process where it loads in the data for the map - it includes map rules, server data, various settings the server can change, who is online, what their score is, etc, etc.

The map ends, and a new map begins. It sends your stats from in-game to the Master EA Server and it updates the stats for your account (this is used for ranks in games that give you additional weapons, etc, etc).

It restarts the "connecting" process for the new map.

You log off eventually, and that also updates the stats on the Master EA Server.

My assumption is that the connecting process loads up the ads and that it does not actually change dynamically within a map. I get this from logic and from various things I've read about how they're doing the ads. I have not read it specifically, but it is my interpretation. Then I would assume that in your connections with the EA Master Server it will load up your viewing data for those ads.

So, your EA account has the info you mentioned Jon - name, address, age, sex, whatever else they ask you for. So it could certainly do what you were thinking Jon and tie some demographic information to the ads.

I personally wonder how much EA gets out of this really. Even if they ARE getting your web viewing data, I find it hard to believe that there will be a lot of "click-throughs" from in-game ads.

[wade moore]

Well, despite what the guy from DICE said I would still be skeptical that they're going to limit it like that. The EULA doesn't include that limitation IMO and so EA can do what they want and DICE isn't the one who's developed this "advertising technology". The first thing that came to my mind when reading the DICE guys post was in 6 months they can say "we didn't know that EA was going to do that and we didn't write that code". Anyway, doesn't matter to me since either way it wouldn't really bother me personally and the game doesn't look like one I'd buy in any case.

Valid points.

Again, for me, I don't really care if they're looking at my web viewing data. To this day, I still don't see why people get so upset about that.

[Bee]

Valid points.

Again, for me, I don't really care if they're looking at my web viewing data. To this day, I still don't see why people get so upset about that.

I wouldn't care either and it wouldn't keep me from buying a game that I was interested in. If they are going to have ads in a game, I'd rather have ads that are interesting to me than just random crap.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Again, for me, I don't really care if they're looking at my web viewing data. To this day, I still don't see why people get so upset about that.

Sony felt the same way. They didn't see any reason why they couldn't watch what you were doing on your computer. They're now paying off a multi-million dollar judgement that went against them.

[wade moore]

Sony felt the same way. They didn't see any reason why they couldn't watch what you were doing on your computer. They're now paying off a multi-million dollar judgement that went against them.

I'm pretty surprised/annoyed to see this compared to Sony's situation.

Sony is in trouble because they broke people's machines, not because they were analyzing what people surfed.

[MikeVic]

Valid points.

Again, for me, I don't really care if they're looking at my web viewing data. To this day, I still don't see why people get so upset about that.

To me, it's the same thing as if I had a camera following me around everywhere I went. One's in the real world (cameras) and one's in the virtual world (analyzing your web traffic).

It's just creepy to me. I hate how gmail has targeted ads too. It feels like my privacy is being invaded.

[wade moore]

To me, it's the same thing as if I had a camera following me around everywhere I went. One's in the real world (cameras) and one's in the virtual world (analyzing your web traffic).

It's just creepy to me. I hate how gmail has targeted ads too. It feels like my privacy is being invaded.

http://www.ceilingcat.com/ceilingcat.jpg

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm pretty surprised/annoyed to see this compared to Sony's situation.

Sony is in trouble because they broke people's machines, not because they were analyzing what people surfed.

Oh really? The court judgment stated that the reason they were sued was because they were unlawfully installing software that monitored their actions (namely whether they burned any music CD's and what the user was downloading to their computer, lawfully or unlawfully). The software didn't break their computer. It simply blocked them from burning any CD's.

While you can certainly argue the severity of what they're doing, both are installing software that wouldn't be installed if the user had any choice in the matter. EA will try to say that they threw in that extra piece of paper that told the user about the additional software, so they aren't downloading it without the user's knowledge. My understanding is that the developer of BF 2142 is really hacked off at EA for throwing this stuff into their game. The slip of paper regarding the adware was thrown in late because they were hoping to avoid any legal conflicts. Given that the purchased software is basically unusable if you don't want the adware on your computer, that slip of paper that they threw in as a last resort may not be enough.

In addition, this action by EA to throw this into the game is going to negatively affect their relationship with their developers. If we avoid the discussion of the quality of the BF 2142 game, DICE is left having to deal with an issue that wasn't even part of their software as they originally envisioned it. Other developers will now be a bit more guarded if they have a relationship with EA regarding publishing of their game.

[st.cronin]

Valid points.

Again, for me, I don't really care if they're looking at my web viewing data. To this day, I still don't see why people get so upset about that.

''

Also, I think we either have to accept an advertising model for the internet, or a "pay-as-you-go" model. Perhaps that doesn't apply here specifically, but the internet needs to be paid for. I would personally rather it be through ads than through subscriptions to every site I want to visit.

[MJ4H]

''

Also, I think we either have to accept an advertising model for the internet

I could probably accept that. What does she look like?

[wade moore]

Oh really? The court judgment stated that the reason they were sued was because they were unlawfully installing software that monitored their actions (namely whether they burned any music CD's and what the user was downloading to their computer, lawfully or unlawfully). The software didn't break their computer. It simply blocked them from burning any CD's.

While you can certainly argue the severity of what they're doing, both are installing software that wouldn't be installed if the user had any choice in the matter. EA will try to say that they threw in that extra piece of paper that told the user about the additional software, so they aren't downloading it without the user's knowledge. My understanding is that the developer of BF 2142 is really hacked off at EA for throwing this stuff into their game. The slip of paper regarding the adware was thrown in late because they were hoping to avoid any legal conflicts. Given that the purchased software is basically unusable if you don't want the adware on your computer, that slip of paper that they threw in as a last resort may not be enough.

In addition, this action by EA to throw this into the game is going to negatively affect their relationship with their developers. If we avoid the discussion of the quality of the BF 2142 game, DICE is left having to deal with an issue that wasn't even part of their software as they originally envisioned it. Other developers will now be a bit more guarded if they have a relationship with EA regarding publishing of their game.

Maybe I misunderstand the Sony/Starport issue - or maybe I'm confusing the two together, but I was pretty certain that the outrage was over computers being "broken".

Your point about their relationship with developers is a very good one. However, they'll just do what they did with DICE and throw money in their face and make it all better.

[rkmsuf]

Whaaaaaa...I got spyware. Now everyone knows I'm a nerd. Whaaaaaa.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Given that the purchased software is basically unusable if you don't want the adware on your computer, that slip of paper that they threw in as a last resort may not be enough.

I'm not sure that's actually relevant. You bought it (from a store that probably has a no return policy but that's not EA's fault), you either choose to install it or not. Nobody from EA is forcing you to install it, they've acknowledged (albeit in legalese) what they're doing. The decision is up to the user at that point.

Other developers will now be a bit more guarded if they have a relationship with EA regarding publishing of their game.

Do you honestly believe that 99.9% of developers give a shit what EA does as long as the check they write to the developer clears? I mean, at this point, it's not like EA is an unknown quantity. Or at least "don't give enough of a shit to turn down an EA offer".

[JonInMiddleGA]

I could probably accept that. What does she look like?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/1729000/1729026.widec.jpg

[st.cronin]

I could probably accept that. What does she look like?

http://www.ukhockey.com/images/posters/ashley_judd.jpg

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not sure that's actually relevant. You bought it (from a store that probably has a no return policy but that's not EA's fault), you either choose to install it or not. Nobody from EA is forcing you to install it, they've acknowledged (albeit in legalese) what they're doing. The decision is up to the user at that point.



Do you honestly believe that 99.9% of developers give a shit what EA does as long as the check they write to the developer clears? I mean, at this point, it's not like EA is an unknown quantity. Or at least "don't give enough of a shit to turn down an EA offer".

As far as your first point goes, at the very least, it's a betrayal of consumer trust. Given the high number of sequels currently in the video game industry, it's never a good idea to alienate your consumers to the point where they don't buy future installments of a game. My guess is that this release between the lousy quality and the adware will probably end the Battlefield series.

Hard to tell on your second point. Judging from the developer comments both on the message boards and the anonymous comments to the press, they do give a sh$% about what occured in this release.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Going back a few posts. Yes, Wade, you are naive. And I don't care if you don't mind the adware - you can play it then with it. As for me, I don't let anybody install that kind of crap on my computer -- so I won't buy it and I bet others won't. Of course, those who didn't know until they paid and broke the seal probably now don't have that choice.

[Subby]

You know, as long as they are letting you know that there is going to be spyware on your computer, are they really doing anything wrong?

As long as they aren't sneaking around doing it, then I don't see the problem. Your recourse is pretty obvious.

Gmail gives me targeted ads while I read my email. I'm not crazy about it, but that's the price I have agreed to pay in order to use their free service.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You know, as long as they are letting you know that there is going to be spyware on your computer, are they really doing anything wrong?

As long as they aren't sneaking around doing it, then I don't see the problem. Your recourse is pretty obvious.

Gmail gives me targeted ads while I read my email. I'm not crazy about it, but that's the price I have agreed to pay in order to use their free service.

If they let you know about the adware before you open the game so you have the option to return it, there is no problem. They should disclose it on the outside of the box, but obviously they're not going to do that because they know it would diminish the sales figures.

To some extent they are sneaking around. This information concerning the adware should be specifically stated in the EULA of the game. You can easily find the EULA for most games online and read them if you'd like to do so. It was not put in the EULA in this case. It was thrown into the box on a separate sheet.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree that if they let you know, then it's up to the consumer to decide whether to buy. But I think it is unfair for any consumer who broke the seal and is unable to return it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Maybe I misunderstand the Sony/Starport issue - or maybe I'm confusing the two together, but I was pretty certain that the outrage was over computers being "broken".

Your point about their relationship with developers is a very good one. However, they'll just do what they did with DICE and throw money in their face and make it all better.

Yeah, not maybe, you did misunderstand it. One part was the disruption it computer security it caused. But Sony was sued for the simple act of secretly installing spyware on consumer computers (whether or not it "broke" people's computers). Please, a little more research there before you start offering up facts.

Then mentality of upper management at Sony said it all. Sony BMG's Global Digital Business President Thomas Hesse, rather than apologizing, simply stated "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

[wade moore]

If they let you know about the adware before you open the game so you have the option to return it, there is no problem. They should disclose it on the outside of the box, but obviously they're not going to do that because they know it would diminish the sales figures.

To some extent they are sneaking around. This information concerning the adware should be specifically stated in the EULA of the game. You can easily find the EULA for most games online and read them if you'd like to do so. It was not put in the EULA in this case. It was thrown into the box on a separate sheet.

I'll agree with you on this one.

I just read the 2142 EULA on their official website and it mentions nothing about this notice that is slid into the box.

[Subby]

If they let you know about the adware before you open the game so you have the option to return it, there is no problem. They should disclose it on the outside of the box, but obviously they're not going to do that because they know it would diminish the sales figures.

To some extent they are sneaking around. This information concerning the adware should be specifically stated in the EULA of the game. You can easily find the EULA for most games online and read them if you'd like to do so. It was not put in the EULA in this case. It was thrown into the box on a separate sheet.
Yeah, I completely agree that they are being scumbags in this case.

[wade moore]

Yeah, not maybe, you did misunderstand it. One part was the disruption it computer security it caused. But Sony was sued for the simple act of secretly installing spyware on consumer computers (whether or not it "broke" people's computers). Please, a little more research there before you start offering up facts.

Then mentality of upper management at Sony said it all. Sony BMG's Global Digital Business President Thomas Hesse, rather than apologizing, simply stated "Most people, I think, like don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Ok Mr., "I never get anything wrong". I think I've done a good job in this thread of coming with actual facts, researched the exact statements made, etc. I missed on this one little piece.

Give me a break.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Break given. It was however a critical piece important to the debate.

[wade moore]

Break given. It was however a critical piece important to the debate.

True.

Although in theory different because they are "warning" consumers. Although we would both agree they are not warning them early enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they let you know about the adware before you open the game so you have the option to return it, there is no problem.

Except they aren't the ones (AFAIK) refusing to give you the option to return it. That falls on the retailers. (Exception: unless the game companies have handcuffed the retailers on the subject of returns, which is something I'm not aware of but is certainlly a possibility).


... but obviously they're not going to do that because they know it would diminish the sales figures.

I believe that it's very arguable whether it would make more than a tiny fractional difference. How many people do you know that have ever actually read a EULA? And of those, how many of them had the foggiest idea what the heck they agreed to?

[wade moore]

Except they aren't the ones (AFAIK) refusing to give you the option to return it. That falls on the retailers. (Exception: unless the game companies have handcuffed the retailers on the subject of returns, which is something I'm not aware of but is certainlly a possibility).




I believe that it's very arguable whether it would make more than a tiny fractional difference. How many people do you know that have ever actually read a EULA? And of those, how many of them had the foggiest idea what the heck they agreed to?

A note that could be interesting with this point.

I believe a fair amount of people, particularly those that want it on release day, are buying it via the EA Downloader (elicense rather than physical disk).

[JonInMiddleGA]

A note that could be interesting with this point.

I believe a fair amount of people, particularly those that want it on release day, are buying it via the EA Downloader (elicense rather than physical disk).

That is interesting (and something I forgot about).
And, just because you mentioned it, there's a link to the EULA about halfway down this page (https://account.ea.com/commerce/product-info.jsp?ipath=15&locale=en_US&sls=2&site=eaco&prodid=BF2142&skin=bf2142&app=commerce)

edit to add: I couldn't link directly to the EULA .pdf because it's being called from a script. It's in there (just far enough down so you have to scroll down a little to see it, at least on my screen) between the top section that tells what you get & the lower section that lists the system requirements.

[wade moore]

That is interesting (and something I forgot about).
And, just because you mentioned it, there's a link to the EULA about halfway down this page (https://account.ea.com/commerce/product-info.jsp?ipath=15&locale=en_US&sls=2&site=eaco&prodid=BF2142&skin=bf2142&app=commerce)[/quote]

Yeah, that's what I was referring to earlier when I said I read the EULA and it had no mention of the ad software.

I see no mention of return policies either.

Ah, a seperate link on online policies on the same page..

Refunds for Products and Services:

There are no refunds for products or services purchased on our Websites, provided that by law, customers in the European Union have the right to withdraw from the purchase of software products within fourteen (14) calendar days, commencing on the day after the date of purchase (the “Cooling Off Period”). You will lose your right of withdrawal if you start downloading your software before the end of the Cooling Off Period. To cancel your software purchase within the Cooling Off Period, please visit support.ea.com (http://support.ea.com/), login to the EA Account used for your purchase, and open any FAQ to reveal the “Ask a Question” tab. Complete the information in the “Ask a Question” tab and, if possible, attach a copy of your purchase confirmation email using the “Attach Files” feature.

If you cancel your order for software products within the Cooling Off Period, we will refund the Price as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event within 30 days after the date that you exercise your right of withdrawal.

By ordering services from us, you agree that your access to the applicable services will commence immediately after you have received our purchase confirmation email. As a consequence, European customers will not be entitled to any Cooling Off Period in connection with such services.

This Contract does not confer any rights or remedies upon any person other than the parties to this Contract. You may also have additional rights under applicable law.



So.. would be interesting to test them on this in reference to the ad policies.

[Mustang]

Whaaaaaa...I got spyware. Now everyone knows I'm a nerd. Whaaaaaa.

In other news, EA determined that in the 18-35 male demographic, for those that played BF2, a full 100% enjoyed playing videos games.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't like the idea of this at all, and honestly it would make me think twice about any EA games with this feature, but couldn't you just have a firewall configured not to ever let the data get sent out and then brute-force remove the proggy from your computer (as someone will no doubt come up with a removal procedure shortly after release)?

not that it makes it okay, but there is a fairly easy workaround.

[wade moore]

i don't like the idea of this at all, and honestly it would make me think twice about any EA games with this feature, but couldn't you just have a firewall configured not to ever let the data get sent out and then brute-force remove the proggy from your computer (as someone will no doubt come up with a removal procedure shortly after release)?

not that it makes it okay, but there is a fairly easy workaround.

People are already coming up with methods to block the traffic, although right now they're doing it by manually modifying your hostfile to point all of the sites it points to for ads to 127.0.0.1 - so it's not exactly a slick method.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Except they aren't the ones (AFAIK) refusing to give you the option to return it. That falls on the retailers. (Exception: unless the game companies have handcuffed the retailers on the subject of returns, which is something I'm not aware of but is certainlly a possibility).




I believe that it's very arguable whether it would make more than a tiny fractional difference. How many people do you know that have ever actually read a EULA? And of those, how many of them had the foggiest idea what the heck they agreed to?

Regarding your first point, most of the changes in the return policy in places like Best Buy WERE attributed mainly to the complaints of companies like EA. They didn't like the fact that people were playing their games and then returning them within a short period of time. There is some merit to the argument that piracy may be part of the problem, but they certainly don't like taking back units either, no matter how good or bad the quality of the game is.

Regarding your second point, the EULA was created as a standard to make sure things like what has occured with BF 2142. By forcing the companies to disclose everything, they run the risk that if they try to sneak things in, they might get caught. In this case, it wasn't even put in the EULA, so I'm not sure what relevance any consumer's frequency of reading the EULA's has on this situation. Even if they DID read it, they wouldn't have known about it anyway. Whether a customer reads the EULA or not has nothing to do with the law that requires that EA fully discloses everything in the EULA of all of their products. They didn't do that in this situation.

[Raiders Army]

IMHO, after the debacle that was Madden on the 360 EA deserves to get shanked in the ballz. From what I can tell, EA Sports is going downhill fast and EA Games has a few tentpoles keeping it alive (Sims, Battlefield).

[wade moore]

From what I can tell, EA Sports is going downhill fast and EA Games has a few tentpoles keeping it alive (Sims, Battlefield).

I just don't understand people that make comments like this.

We had this out in the other thread. Say what you will about EA, but to claim that they only have one or two titles that sells well is silly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. EA is now basically asking Windows users to uninstall a Microsoft security fix because the game bombs out if it is not able to connect when online to transfer the advertisements.

From the FAQ's on BF2142:

"Players who have the Windows security update KB917422 installed may suffer from an application error when running Battlefield 2142. This error can be solved by uninstalling the KB917422 update."

So I'm supposed to uninstall a security feature so EA's adware can access my computer or the game will not work? That seems like a great idea. :rolleyes:

[wade moore]

Wow. EA is now basically asking Windows users to uninstall a Microsoft security fix because the game bombs out if it is not able to connect when online to transfer the advertisements.

From the FAQ's on BF2142:

"Players who have the Windows security update KB917422 installed may suffer from an application error when running Battlefield 2142. This error can be solved by uninstalling the KB917422 update."

So I'm supposed to uninstall a security feature so EA's adware can access my computer or the game will not work? That seems like a great idea. :rolleyes:

I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.

Like I was saying, I think there are much bigger reasons that this release may fail that have nothing to do with the ad-tracking "feature".

[wade moore]

Dola:

Although you're right, there is speculation that this is directly related to the ad-tracking, but i dont' believe anyone has proven it yet - my point was more that the bugs, bad patching, server problems, etc are worse than the actual ad-tracking.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow! Bill Harris didn't mince words with his latest blog on this topic. Ouch!

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-eas-finger-and-your-ass.html

More on EA's Finger and Your Ass

I'm not sure if this is version-universal, but here's the text of the Battlefield 2142 "flyer" as shown in this photo:
The Software may incorporate technology developed by IGA Worldwide Inc. ("IGA")(the "Advertising Technology"). The purpose of the Advertising Technology is to deliver in-game advertisements to you when you use the Software while connected to the Internet. When you use the software while connected to the Internet, the Advertising Technology may record your Internet Protocol address and other anonymous information ("Advertising Data"). The Advertising Data is temporarily used by IGA to enable the presentation and measurement of in-game advertisements and other in-game objects which are uploaded temporarily to your personal computer or game console and changed during online game play. The Advertising Technology does not collect any personally identifiable information about you, and EA will not provide IGA with any of your personally identifiable information. The servers used by the Advertising Technology may, from time to time, be located outside your country of residence. If you are located within the European Union, the servers may be located outside the European Union.

By installing and using the Software, you agree to the transfer of Advertising Data to servers located outside your country of residence and, if applicable, outside the European Union, (ii) the collection and use of the Advertising Data as described in this Section; and (iii) the delivery of advertising and marketing content by the Advertising Technology. IF YOU DO NOT WANT IGA TO COLLECT, STORE, OR TRANSMIT THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, DO NOT INSTALL OR PLAY THE SOFTWARE ON ANY PLATFORM THAT IS USED TO CONNECT TO THE INTERNET.
First, off: DICKHEADS, PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT AT US IN CAPITAL LETTERS. If you can't write this invasion of privacy flyer more clearly than a fourth grader, shouting at us is not going to help.

And if you're a fourth grader reading this column, believe me, I'm not talking about you. You're cool.

It appears to me that the important phrase is here:
When you use the software while connected to the Internet, the Advertising Technology may record your Internet Protocol address and other anonymous information ("Advertising Data"). The Advertising Data is temporarily used by IGA to enable the presentation and measurement of in-game advertisements and other in-game objects which are uploaded temporarily to your personal computer or game console and changed during online game play.

Notice that the "Advertising Technology" (aka "spyware") records "anonymous information." What it does not say is that the information collected is limited to what you're doing inside the game. In addition to that, what ads you click on inside the game will be recorded. Literally read, it's saying that "advertising data" and "measurement of in-game advertisements" are separate entities.

There is zero explanation of what this "anonymous information" actually represents, and that's why it smells.

Oh, and here's one more question--about this:
The Advertising Technology does not collect any personally identifiable information about you, and EA will not provide IGA with any of your personally identifiable information.

So does the phrase "personally identifiable" mean me as a person or my computer? Clearly, if the ads are going to be targeted, my computer is being identified. So what exactly do they mean here?

Now is it possible that EA is doing nothing wrong here? Absolutely. But they seem pathologically unable to write any document related to privacy that's clear enough to be understood, and the last time issues related to their Privacy Policy came up, they were real issues, with enough substance that EA actually changed the wording of their Privacy Policy.

[wade moore]

Now is it possible that EA is doing nothing wrong here? Absolutely. But they seem pathologically unable to write any document related to privacy that's clear enough to be understood, and the last time issues related to their Privacy Policy came up, they were real issues, with enough substance that EA actually changed the wording of their Privacy Policy.

I think this is a VERY good summary. Basically what he's saying, to me, is that EA may be doing what the one DICE developer claimed in the forum post I pasted. And if they are, there probably isn't much to complain about.

However, he's accurate (and you guys have been in this thread) in stating that their policy does not clearly state this fact. If they were to update the policy to clearly state that only in game advertising data is captured, then EA would have more of a leg to stand on.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Right, but it's the fact they won't clearly state that which makes it suspicious. In dealing with a large company whose goal is to maximize profits, my default position is to think the worse -- because it usually is.

And this is indeed the line that is confusing: "The Advertising Technology does not collect any personally identifiable information about you, and EA will not provide IGA with any of your personally identifiable information."

If it doesn't collect any personally identifiable information then why do they say they will not provide it. They could have just stopped at the first sentence. Unless . . .

[Flasch186]

my friend just got this and says his computer is choppy as heck and its a nice rig, so the Specs must be pretty high on this bad boy. Ill be staying away. Ive found that if you dont stay addicted to the game and fall behind the curve, you end up getting destroyed in online play....so much so that it becomes unenjoyable and you feel its pointless.

[wade moore]

my friend just got this and says his computer is choppy as heck and its a nice rig, so the Specs must be pretty high on this bad boy. Ill be staying away. Ive found that if you dont stay addicted to the game and fall behind the curve, you end up getting destroyed in online play....so much so that it becomes unenjoyable and you feel its pointless.

It runs fine on my machine and my machine is pretty middle of the road.

In fact, a large majority of the people I've heard talk about it say BF2142 runs better on their machine than BF2, myself included.

[Eilim]

It runs fine on my machine and my machine is pretty middle of the road.

In fact, a large majority of the people I've heard talk about it say BF2142 runs better on their machine than BF2, myself included.

While my rig is no longer top of the line, it's still able to laugh at most games requirements.. So I might not be a good example, but I have to agree and say that bf2142 seems to run a heck of alot smoother than bf2. Plus its fun as hell, and has me hooked more than bf2 ever did. I even went out and bought copies for my brother in law and cousin so I can have some steady squadmates.

Anyways, I'll stop rambling and let you get back to blasting the ingame advertising which while I hated the whole idea of, do have to admit isn't putting me off as much as I expected it too.

[wade moore]

Eilim - where do you play at?

[terpkristin]

If EA's spyware doesn't get your goat, perhaps these money-grubbing techniques might? I understand the spyware to some degree. I think it's the wave of the future. However, these are just pure money-grubbing:

EA's premium ripoff: football tutorial videos on XBLM (http://sports.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/eas-premium-ripoff/)

EA charging twice for downloadable content (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/24/ea-charges-twice-for-godfather-gun/)

Now I know that both of these things require you to actively make a purchase, but the fact that they are doing it like this just makes me not want to buy any more of their games.


/tk

[MJ4H]

I've completely had it with EA Sports. I used to love their games, but after watching the gameplay in their games (especially the NHL series) never improve and seeing the ridiculous catch-up logic in so many of their games (way too much stupidity that you can't control happening in many of their games) I just can't stand them anymore. Now I hear things like making the 360 version of their games stripped down versions to try to get you to buy two versions of the same game, and now this crap. This company just makes my blood boil.

[terpkristin]

I've completely had it with EA Sports. I used to love their games, but after watching the gameplay in their games (especially the NHL series) never improve and seeing the ridiculous catch-up logic in so many of their games (way too much stupidity that you can't control happening in many of their games) I just can't stand them anymore. Now I hear things like making the 360 version of their games stripped down versions to try to get you to buy two versions of the same game, and now this crap. This company just makes my blood boil.

Actually, one of the quotes (ok, semi-quote, since I don't have the exact quote, but this is the jist of it) was that somebody who develops the Madden games for EA said that the reason that the X360 version doesn't have all the features of the games for the XBox and PS2 is that "the engine is already established for the 'older' consoles," more or less acknowledging that the only thing to buy the new game each year for is the new roster--there is minimal actual work going into the game itself.

Of course, as I already said, I'm pretty jaded with EA. Maybe I'm just reading more into it than there is.

/tk

[MJ4H]

so disgusting