December 18, 2006 -
Here's a piece of video game legislation GamePolitics could really get behind.California Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) told a local T.V. news station that she may introduce a bill into the state legislature to stop in-game ads and spyware from being installed onto players' PCs by the software installation process.
As reported by KGTV-10, EA's Battlefield 2142
includes a warning card - inside the box - which reads:By installing and using the software, you agree to: the transfer of advertising data to servers located outside of your country of residence the collection and use of advertising data the delivery of advertising and marketing content
Beth Givens of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse told KGTV-10:
There is a technology that looks at all activity the entire family participates in. This is particularly vile and calls for legislation.
Assemblywoman Saldana may introduce a bill to stop the practice, which is becoming increasingly more common in games. She told 10news:
A parental notice telling (consumers) private information might be at risk is important to have.
There's more info on BF2142's spyware in this report from 1up.
GP: A shout-out to GamePolitics correspondent Colin "Jabrwock" McInnes for the tip on this one!
Comments
Maybe it's different down in the states, but being employed in the Canadian credit industry I can tell you that while Microsoft can in fact ask for my credit information there are some pretty strict laws regarding who they can give that information to and how that information can be used. Take a look at the branch banking system, in fact. It's a lot harder to document a person's personal information via credit up here if they don't have your consent to use that information. Since Microsoft is not a registered Canadian bank they can't get this permission.
And again, this is fundamentally different. I acknowledge that Microsoft knows and could tell others what I purchase on Live. That still doesn't change the fact that I'm actively making the purchase. The difference between Microsoft documenting my information and EA documenting my information is clear in this instance in that the source where they get their information is different.
In the case of Microsoft, they don't have to get any information from my own system. Any information they gather based on my actions is taken from their own records: The record of their sale of X Live points to me, the record of me purchasing Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and other things with those points, etcetera, all of that comes from records they already have. This is information they've acquired through legitimate transactions with me.
The information EA is gathering is different. It's going to EA regardless of whether I choose to send it or not. It's being culled as I play. The adware program is not even being installed with BF2142 as part of the same executable, it's being installed as a seperate program on the registry. Theoretically it could perform all sorts of datamining operations on my computer with the sort of access it has. Things like EA's promise that it will be used for more legitimate purposes than the darker possibilities this access offers mean nothing beside the simple fact that the ability to create a much more limited version was available to EA. It would not have been hard to incorporate this program into the game itself or at least include the uninstall for the program into the uninstall for the game, nor would it have been hard to at LEAST include a seperate uninstall for the program itself. Then there's the fact that this adware exposes my system to plenty of OTHER malware which could piggyback off the program's own work or just ignore the program entirely and slip through the security update I've had to disable to play the game.
Then there's that not-English warning. It resembles English the way a wrecked car resembles a working car: All the pieces are there... but they don't fit together quite right and there's a certain messiness to it that tells you something's off. It's written in that legal jargon you find in a EULA which doesn't really help the common user. Plain old English would have made what they're doing a lot clearer as would an actual explaination about the method of transfer.
Now, am I saying EA is going to do all this stuff? Not at all. The possibility exists, though, and it makes me decidedly uncomfortable. I don't think it's unfair at all to be told this kind of information BEFORE I've plunked down fifty dollars I might not get back.
My point is that either way, your information and privacy have been compromised. And no, it's not just limited to what you choose to document. Your payment information (meaning your full name, billing address, credit history, shopping history through that card, etc) is accessible to Microsoft and to anyone else who wants it. Ditto anyone you purchase something through on Live Marketplace. You may remember that EA took a hit for selling that data from Live Marketplace to advertisers recently?
In short, you have -Less- control over your privacy than someone using the internet via a PC does because while I can A) not buy games that have in-game ads, and/or B) if I do, I can block them from accessing the internet -and- keep their ad servers blocked in my hosts file, your privacy was unretrievably damaged the moment you signed up for Live.
The point still remains that the software is unreturnable at the point you're informed of the Adware. I personally would have been very angry if I'd bought a game which installs adware on my system and I'd only been informed of this after I'd already opened the shrink-wrapping.
The point still remains that for the software to run correctly online you have to disable a security patch. The point still remains that the adware doesn't uninstall itself with the game's uninstall, and in fact can't be uninstalled by someone with only moderate computer literacy. Those are still some pretty damning points which make me ask a lot of questions about EA's practices.
@Brer
I'm going to assume you're talking about me. Sure, Microsoft sells my information to advertisers. I know that. Thing is, I don't really care so much. The difference in this instance is clear... Microsoft is taking information I've given them and using it to formulate a marketing strategy. Perhaps they track which games I play, but this can be done by anyone with the ability to view a Live profile, which is quite a few people when you get right down to it. They're not installing a program which silently records information and then smuggles it back to their marketing department. Regardless of what Microsoft might do with my Live profile's information, the information they get is limited by my own interaction with Live and what I choose to document. For all Microsoft knows I could be a fourteen-year-old girl named Sandy.
The difference between known marketing like XBox Live and silent marketing like an information dataminer like that which is present in BF2142 is fairly clear to me.
@FantasyStar
Glad I made you laugh.
Damn this thread is active for a frontpage thread.
Anyways all is sorted out but I felt I needed to say that YES I HATE THOSE DAMNED ANTI PIRACY ADS YOU HAVE TO SIT THROUGH TO WATCH MOVIES WHICH HAVE BEEN OBTAINED LEGALLY! It's enough to make me want to pirate dvds. O.o
The real agenda here is that if they can find ways into your privacy, then they can do much more and that's the real fear. We all know DICE and EA know more than they're saying and that I know is really the issue because of the fear of "not knowing". And that's what I like about this new game legislation that it forces all pro-game advertisement companies to spill the beans and leave none left over, so we're "in the know".
My argument for this however is that and I'm sure someone covered it already (can't remember names) is that it's not direct and ruining the experience. Truth be told, I laughed a bit when I saw that remark about FFXII and Vaan taking a break to tell you that his teeth are white because Colgate Total's FTW. *laughs*.
If it were me, I'd wish I were dead before we enter "Judgement Day" and all the toasters turn into WMDs.
With that said, I also think that legislation prohibiting ads is unnecessary. Frankly, it's none of the government's business what EA or anyone else does or doesn't put on your computer -UNLESS- it causes actual -damage- (a la Starforce), in which case you have grounds for a consumer complaint to the FTC. In other words, there's already a system and laws in place to deal with this situation and no new government interference in business is needed. And remember, that statement is coming from someone who -hates- in-game ads and is horrified by the tolerance he's seeing in this thread and the other threads like it.
BTW, for the semi-smug console gamer that posted above: In-game ads are already all -over- your games. You don't avoid them by sticking to consoles, and if you have a Live account All Your Personal Info Are Belong To Anyone Who Wants It (MS can and does sell your Live account info freely).
I understand what you mean by there being hesitation for being discreet about all of this. That said, people should be happy that they were up-front about this. In any case the arguments here are that 2142 doesn't make it known that the content is installed, which isn't true- there are at least 2 instances where it's made known. And as far as "being bombarded with people asking me to buy things", in a game like 2142, you worry more about being bombarded by titan turrets and artillery strikes than in-game advertisements that don't affect your computer adversely.
Like I said- "Spyware" implies that the content is installed discreetly with the knowledge of the owner. "Adware" is different in that the content is installed with users knowledge.
You might want to reword what you've said. PLENTY of video games come with in-game advertisements. F.E.A.R. has Alienware laptops. Enter the Matrix had a buttload of in-game advertisements, like for Powerade.
I though it would make sense to post DICE's explanation.
Anyhow, I don't like it mainly because I don't like being bombarded with people asking me to buy things. If I decide that I want something, I'll go and ask you for it. If I'm not asking you for it, it probably means I don't find myself needing it yet.
If the software is installed silently, then why did EA tell everybody that it's done? And unless you just zipped through the installation process, then you ARE notified of the fact that it's installed on your computer. It tells you in a small paper note that this will happen, and then again when you install the game.
Secondly, the game only tracks what in-game advertisements you look at. Unless there's something I'm missing or some site that proves otherwise, I'm cool with it.
Say what you want, this is NOT a form of Malware, no matter how much it might piss you off.
See, it's stuff like this which prevents me from doing any sort of PC gaming. Part of my income is based around a small business I run, organized almost entirely on my home PC. I've got backups, of course, but it still makes me uncomfortable to have spyware on my system because I'm not sure I want people looking through my finances. Not that I'm necessarily worried that EA is going to use my financial documents to undercut my business (as I doubt they're much concerned with a Graphical Artist), but it's still troublesome by the fact that the software is there and could possible get this information.
It also bothers me that they didn't explicitly warn users about this ad-software. Regardless of the supposedly benign intentions of the developer, I'm going to eye anything they're installing warily when they don't bother to make it clear they're installing it. Especially when the program has access to my computer's workings I don't even grant my roommate.
What's wrong with static advertisements? A passive texture file with the Pepsi logo isn't nearly as off-putting to the tech-savvy computer as a rootkit which tracks the user's IP and installs itself without notifying the user. People aren't getting pissed off by advertisements, they're getting pissed off by the manner in which the advertisements are being delivered.
My question to developers and publishers is simple:
Why are your ads so important that I'm required to allow you to scan my system? Did you somehow forget that you're in the business of making games and not creating virtual real estate which you can whore out to the highest bidder?
Not that I’m necessarily worried that EA is going to use my financial documents to undercut my business (as I doubt they’re much concerned with a Graphical Artist), but it’s still troublesome by the fact that the software is there and could possible get this information.
Not to mention the fact that in order to play online, EA recommends you disable a critical Microsoft security update that prevents viruses and trojans from highjacking your system... nice.
Reminds me of that Sony "anti-music-piracy" rootkit that opened the system up to being highjacked by botnets...
I Understand what a Rootkit is. I know all about starforce. To my knowledge however, the Adware, is contained within the game executable. If you give the game firewall rights you are also giving the advertising software firewall rights.
When the controversy first started I was interested because I intended to get 2142, however I chose not to and lost all interest in the specific issue. From what I know it looks at how you view in game billboards.(Ones that don't fit my definition of unobtrusive) Now if you can provide a link with evidence that it does more than monitor what ad you looked at in the game please do.
To make it clear, I was commenting on the Privacy rights clearing house ladies comment.
There is apparently a seperate set of files being installed, hence the ranting about an non-uninstallable chunk of code that remains after the game is uninstalled. I believe that it is that code that is the adware.
And it's not so much WHAT the adware records, but rather the fact that it's doing it without asking first, that's cheezing everyone off. That EA doesn't tell you until after you've ripped open the box (making it now unreturnable), that they require you to install adware in order to play the game, and there's no way to turn it off. Plus the whole "we require you to make your computer less secure in order to play" thing.
Just like those "stop stealing you god-damned thieving thief!" commercials they force you to sit through on DVDs... Ironically, if I was pirating the movie, it wouldn't have that ad on it...
Not only did this piss a lot of people off, but it also diminished online game play and required that you had to have an active internet connection to play. Many people uninstalled and went back to the original version because it didn't have that feature in the original package. As far as I know that feature was removed in a later patch or was 'fixed' with a mod so that players could play seemlessly without the ads being shown at all.
Precisely my point. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to find out they have adware in their system through a third party like 1UP.com or Kotaku. In a perfect world, the software shouldn't exist. There's no real point to such focused marketing in a game. The subtle edge you get on which ads are directed where becomes lost with all the users who choose not to play the game.
And no worries... I'm just as annoyed by those unskippable Don't Steal Movies commercials on my DVDs as you. Though I don't see anything wrong with ripping the movie from my DVD into a format readable by my PSP as long as I'm not distributing the file to others. Like HELL I'm paying DVD-prices for a UMD of a movie I already own.
Hmm, well When you are between 2 evils (MS and EA) you have to pick. I was going to give the less established evil the benefit of the doubt. It would not be the first time Microsoft issued a patch that did more than "advertised"
As I have said before. If the ads are non intrusive, clever(It happens sometimes), and they pass the savings on to the consumer(Cheaper games or in the case of MMOs lower subscription fees.
Then again, when you are running your own server that you pay for and you provide the bandwidth for I think you should get a cut of the money, since you are providing the venue for the advertising. If not they should let you turn it off.
The only problem I can think of in this case is of developers releasing games with a couple major bugs and everything but the malware, and then including the malware with an updated EULA in the patch that fixes the major bugs, a month later. Best example of this is the spyware WoW built in to fight gold-farmers.
Like HELL I’m paying DVD-prices for a UMD of a movie I already own.
Yet the MPAA/RIAA would like you to think that every time you rip your movie instead of just buying a 2nd copy, God kills a kitten... ;)
@ffalcon
Sony's software was harmless too. But the viruses that exploited the holes it left in the OS (much like the security patch EA recommends you disable) certainly had the potential to do damage.
I think a large part of the problem users are having with this are as follows:
1) The adware is exposing the system to security flaws by requiring users to disable patches for play. This is not the sort of thing users want to do after they've shelled out forty or fifty bucks for a game, especially when it's for the purpose of advertising.
2) The adware installs itself without explicitly informing the user. It is not presented as a mandatory part of the game's installation but a seperate program, it just installs with the program. The only way people are being made aware of this is through gaming news outlets OR if they happened to catch the vague portion referring to the adware in the EULA... and let's face it, the average user does not read the EULA.
3) The adware does not uninstall itself when the game is uninstalled. If the adware is meant for in-game use only, there should be NO reason for it to remain on a system after the game has been uninstalled.
4) The adware can't, in fact, be uninstalled at all. It clogs the registry and can only be removed by users with a higher-than-average amount of computer literacy.
Am I implying that EA is going to use these faults in the most unscrupulous manner possible? No, but the fact that these faults exist is problematic.
Hey, if they didn't want me to be able to freely copy information from one media format to another they shouldn't have let my government get away with putting a tax on products designed explicitly for that purpose. By doing so they've waived their right to tell me what I can and can't do with my recordable media because I've already paid them just in case I do something naughty.
I love Canada.
Ditto. :D
I believe the argument was since we're all a bunch of thieving thieves anyway, we should preemptively pay up for our crimes. Well, since we've already been found guilty and have paid the fine, I guess we're allowed to do the crime we were accused of? It's only fair. Otherwise they'd have to give the money back, and that's just too much paperwork... ;)
I guess the biggest beef is not that they do in-game advertising, but rather the way they go about collecting data to make it targetted advertising. Having Coke pay to have Coca-Cola cans ingame instead of Nukie Cola is fine. Even having new levels/missions with updated ads is ok too. Or asking if they can dynamically update the ads, and ask me if it's ok to send some information (which they show me before sending) to make the ads more targetted.
But having a rootkit scan my system to tell the game publisher where I live, what time it is, what websites I've been to, and what other games I've installed, especially without my permission, and without even telling me (so there's no way I know to uninstall it, plus it resists uninstalling), is the same tactic that crackers and scammers use, and is a disreputable tactic to use.
Compounded by the fact that you only find out after installing the game (if even then, sometimes you need to read a gaming blog to find out you've installed adware), so most stores refuse to take a return (although I imagine if I started yelling in a store that the software they sold me is infected with virus-like spy software, they'd give me a refund real quick just to shut me up)
Apparently you aren't familiar with rootkits or adware. BF2142 monitors network activity and reports back to EA. Needless to say, that kind of action which circumvents firewalls et al is a breach in security as well. So in 2142, if mom has a headache and looks up info on aspurin then when dad drops into the game to play on his paid server he'll be greated by the most pleasant ad in the world: HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD.
Oh, and this game takes place in a bleak future where everything we know has faded away, but somehow every single mass marketed product continues to live on. I wholeheartedly agree with this, as it will probably get an amendment that requires porducts with starforce (which is known to fuck up your cd drive if you've never had the pleasure of using it) to be labelled as such.
Although starforce isn't quite as worrisome to me at least, since I only ever got infected by Ubisoft games.
Now if only they would make the gamer cheaper from now on. Then I would support it completely.
Just curious how BF2142 monitors all the activities the family participates in. Does it my the computer grow tentacles with little cameras and microphones on the end? Does it stalk around the house watching and recording every movement?
Now in other games that literally install pieces of software that are Spyware in the clearest sense of the word. That is a wholly different thing.
Once again it feels like legislation and commentary that is missing the whole picture.
Just curious, how does advertising call for legislation. What is the definition of vile?
Or am I being too cynical? :p
After all, if things like this are left free, sooner or later, you'll have an even bigger problem: Porn advertisements in games. It'll happen eventually if it gathers data to decide what to display advertisement wise, and that would be a rather major problem, in my view.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the in-game advertisements haven't even really been implemented into the freakin' game to begin with, am I right? So I don't know about there being "Pepsi" ads, either.
In any case, I've yet to see a game that has any form of malignant "spyware". In-game advertising has been done many times as it is. "Adware" is a software package has been installed with the user's consent for it to track where you look. "Spyware" is software that is installed discreetly and tracks the user's site-frequency without consent. These are two totally different things, and need to be treated as such. I said it before, you don't HAVE to install the package, there's really no penalty if you don't, but in the case of 2142, it's something far less worrisome than one might think, AND it lets the user know beforehand.
First, the program comes with 2142. It's even installed silently.
Second, it logs your IP - which a lot of tech-savvy people would already get severely PO'ed over.
Thirdly, it's yet another piece of hidden UNINSTALLABLE (yes, it stays after you uninstall bf2142) software that clogs up your Registry database.
This is enough for it to be branded as Malware.
As for this law proposition... I agree with the intended purpose, but not with how they want to do it. Games don't need spyware, but we don't need any laws against it either.
From what I've read, the bill would require EA to put a disclaimer on the outside of the box explaining that the game gathers and reports information back to EA. Right now that disclaimer is inside the EULA, which you only see after unwrapping the game, which of course voids your ability to return it to most places (some will let you return it, but there's no law saying companies HAVE to accept the return after you've opened it).
There have also been complaints that BF2142 only works if you disable a critical Microsoft security update. The kind that protect the OS from trojans and unauthorized monitoring software.
@Kajex
AFAIK, BF2142's software current queries your ip address and time of day as reported by your PC, to give you geographically-targeted ads, but their EULA claims it gives them the right to collect more if they so chose. This bill is just to make the consumer aware prior to purchase that the software has the capacity to scan your system and report back, whether they choose to do so or not.
Well, yea, I understand the concern over spyware. But GP wrote the law would "stop in-game ads and spyware from being installed," which I took to mean any in-game ads. Especially given how out-of-touch most politricks are.
If it only ends up requiring a warning on the box about nasty spyware a la BF2142, that's not so bad. Though, even then, I'd still rather let the market decide...
On the one hand, it'd be pretty cool to see real advertisements in games. Seeing a red Coca-Cola machine instead of a blue Chocha-Cola machine in Resident Evil 2, or billboards for real cars, or whatever would make the game more immersive. It would give the players that additional connection to the game. If this sort of advertisement can be done tastefully and within context of the game, that's fine.
What I don't want, however, is commercial breaks in my games. If I'm playing FFXII and Vaan takes the time to stop his boss-fight to tell me how to get whiter, brighter teeth with Colgate Total I'm going to be very, VERY pissed off.
I'd also like these ads to be entirely known to users. Let's take the BF2142 example. Let's say EA releases the game with a default set of in-game posters, billboards, and various product placements and comes to an agreement with the various companies involved in the advertisements stating they won't change the ads for three months after release. Now, EA wants to generate more revenue, so they decide to change the ads. Maybe they make the ads part of a new set of maps for players, meaning they can put out additional content for free AND make a profit doing so. Certainly sounds like a win-win situation to me.
That's the sort of in-game advertising I'd like to see. I certainly don't want spyware rooting through my internet history looking for context-sensitive advertisements. I don't even want it to be active by any stretch of the imagination. Ideally, for customers and the companies which rely on the goodwill of their customers, these advertisements should just be sets of textures which we get to see in-game.
ignorance is bliss but not for the rest of us
and yes your computer does have a microphone unless you don't use speakers or headphones (you're obviously not a DJ or know one)
also consistent predictable connections to marketing servers are ideal for hijack or monitoring
in fact given the reality of it all the only apparent result is likely to be longer waiting time for players downloading adds which means more players left the game/idle.
Also who payed the most dictaing what pixels we see and where, as what we are buying are 90% pixels this is THE important factor we will now see adverts instead of landscapes and possibly pauses for adverts like on some websites, not for loading time but just so we look at yet another one.
A kernel sits between hardware and software why does this get affected by the install of a game and why do i need to login as administrator to install it and have my dvd drive in explorer disappear rather like the sony drm rootkit when it is disabled simply.
If these marketing technologies and the rest are so innocent then why are they not fully explained.
Also i've seen many misleading articles which whilst they may help are certainly no guarantee as to the blocking of marketing info, if the install goes kernel level then it could quite easily hide anything from windows which includes any firewall running on it and checking whether this is true (unlikely atleast now) would take more effort than a game would be worth especially one made for a dvd driven console.
Wake up the world can't be seen through windows. if we wouldn't run it then why should we
EA does not spy on you. They don't search your harddrive, or monitor your online behaviour. They do not even store the IP that they are using to feed advertising to your machine. All they do with the in-game technology is making sure that an advertiser only pays for what has been actually seen on screen, which means counting the ads that have been rendered on all PCs.
This has all been discussed already on various forums, and both EA and DIce released press statements. But yet, with some weeks delay, politics is now getting it all wrong (suprise) and is getting all excited about the non-existing attack of privacy.
I know Microsoft can do all this (though they can't, despite your previous assertion, disperse information on my credit history or purchases made through the card elsewhere). The difference is that Microsoft is not installing software which can datamine my system. There's nothing on a console of true personal value. I can't do my banking with my XBox360 or run a business on it. On a computer I can.
And as I've pointed out repeatedly... It's not the ends that matter in this case, but the means by which it's reached. Microsoft is looking through their OWN records and saying "Marshie lives in Toronto and likes retro-gaming". EA is installing a program which potentially root through your internet history and communicate this to EA (note I am saying POTENTIALLY) by examining MY records, not their own. This program can also compromise your internet security. A tech-savvy person can get around this, but those less inclined towards computers may not be able to do so.
The net effect is essentially the same, I admit. But the effect is not what I'm being critical of here.
EA doesn't mine that information by choice. Both the terms of the EULA and the software itself allow EA to dig whatever the heck it wants out of my system. That's something I'm not at all comfortable with.