|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect 3 - Advertising Standards Agency Complaint Not Upheld

Default Mass Effect 3 - Advertising Standards Agency Complaint Not Upheld

June 18th, 2012, 14:34
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
The complaint was not upheld because it is one strong economic sector and that considering the widespread of the method, they can not be punished. This would only lead to more unemployed people etc
Sorry, but that's bollocks ASA has no ties to the American gaming sector in the slightest, and it's more than happy to uphold complains about big corps or supposedly widespread practises. The ASA is an independent British organisation.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 18th, 2012, 19:54
They are independent of what? The world economy?
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#42

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,012

Default 

June 18th, 2012, 22:46
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
They are independent of what? The world economy?
As much as you are, presumably.

There would be no point setting up a regulator if they had a conflict of interest. Sometimes that accidentally happens, but this is something we take very seriously in the UK and they go to great lengths to ensure it doesn't occur.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#43

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 09:24
There would be no point setting up a regulator if they had a conflict of interest?

You could also say there would be no point setting up a regulator if the regulator do not regulate the potentially most harmful people.

Yet it looks like the situation right on. Developpers due to their situation are the most credible yet their speech is not regulated.

There is one reason to set up a regulator: if the regulator can make a profit of the activity.
If yes, then no other reason is needed.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#44

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,012

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 10:18
The ASA is a not-for-profit organisation. But I'm struggling to understand what you're saying - developers speech is not regulated? Well, it's just as regulated as everyone else's speech. If an advert breaches the advertising regulations in the UK then they are forced to change the advert.

But thankfully the advertising regulations in the UK are not silly, so a game that says 'Aliens are invading the Earth!' doesn't have to prove that Aliens are actually invading, because they know that people have some common sense.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 12:44
A non profit association? What is that?

Does it benefit nobody profits from the association? There is no profit in having a job, building up experience and so on?

The developpers' speech is as regulated as anybody else? In what context? Because not everybody is a developper telling about his game, and not every speech is related to advertizing.

Later, it turns into if an advert etc

It means nothing. Mixing common speech and advertizing speech.

The last remark is unfounded. What example given in the post with developpers'quote is similar?

The question is not to know if people can distinguish between the product they have in hand and reality, but to know if when developpers say that aliens are going to feature in the game, the aliens have to feature or not in the game.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#46

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,012

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 13:41
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
A non profit association? What is that?
Do these really not exist in your country? They are organisations that are designed to carry out a purpose without (financial) profit making factoring into decisions.

Does it benefit nobody profits from the association? There is no profit in having a job, building up experience and so on?
The word profit has a different meaning in that context than it's use in a 'not-for-profit organisation' as I spoke of. The latter is talking about financial profit - an actual entity - a profit, the former is using profit as a word for any positive benefit, ie you profit from something. The two aren't interchangeable.

The developpers' speech is as regulated as anybody else? In what context? Because not everybody is a developper telling about his game, and not every speech is related to advertizing.
You didn't provide any context to your statement "their speech is not regulated" so assumed there was no specific context. In that situation it's true - developers have just as much regulation in speech as we do.

If you're talking about advertising, then they have exactly the same regulation in advertising as we do, that is, determined by the laws of the land in which they are advertising. In the UK that's regulated by various bodies, of which the ASA is the first call of action in the case of media advertising. This thread is talking about the ASA, therefore I presume we are talking about the advertising that the ASA covers. If you're talking about other forms of marketing such as development blogs etc. then the ASA don't cover that, so it's irrelevant to a discussion about the ASA (not to say it's not an interesting topic in and of itself - it is).

The last remark is unfounded. What example given in the post with developpers'quote is similar?
It's not unfounded - the ASA is like other subjective regulators in the UK - their primary purpose is pretty much to avoid *offence*, which is a subjective and culturally aware phenomenon. Sophie Dahl's advert wasn't banned because it was inaccurate, but simply because it was deemed offensive to women. Likewise adverts might be suitable for showing at certain times of day but not others. This ' subjective and culturally aware phenomenon' is best described as 'common sense'.

The equivalent in the developers advert is saying the game's ending varies based on the players choices. It factually does vary, and it's also common sense that the player is not going to be shown an entirely complete different universe for every possible action the player can take.

The question is not to know if people can distinguish between the product they have in hand and reality, but to know if when developpers say that aliens are going to feature in the game, the aliens have to feature or not in the game.
If advertising said that aliens are going to feature in the game and they didn't then the ASA would uphold any complaint querying that. But that's not the case here. The advertising said the ending would vary.. and the ending of the game does vary.

Some players are upset because the extent of the varying does not match their expectations, but the ASA applies common sense when it said: "we considered that most consumers would realise there would be a finite number of possible outcomes within the game"

and to finish the quote:
"and, because we considered that the advertiser had shown that players' previous choices and performance would impact on the ending of the game, we concluded that the ad was not misleading. "
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#47

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 14:56
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Some players are upset because the extent of the varying does not match their expectations, but the ASA applies common sense when it said: "we considered that most consumers would realise there would be a finite number of possible outcomes within the game"
There is a world of space between 'infinite' and 'three'. This is where I had hoped some of the common sense you point to would have been used. No one was asking for infinity, but three was a little out of sync with the expectations that the vendor created.

The ASA could perhaps have looked at that gap between 'real' ending variation under common sense (ie almost none besides cosmetic A,B,C) - and promises to potential consumers (that there would be "no A,B,C"). Without common sense, it has no right to judge Marks and Spencer's adverts that may be offensive to all of six women. It should simply set a % of flesh in pre-determined areas that is allowed to be shown and leave computers to determine compliance. However I would prefer the ASA to exercise judgment and common sense. IMO they didn't seem to try in this case. More than one ending? Check. Infinity impossible? Check. CASE DISMISSED!
Gaxkang is offline

Gaxkang

Sentinel

#48

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 323

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 16:05
They didn't say anything in the advert about how many endings there were. They just said your choices drive powerful outcomes. There were something like 9? different endings based on your choices and galactic readiness. The outcomes in terms of story were powerful as well (destroy all synthetic life, or not.. hero lives.. hero dies etc.)
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 16:19
Well this is where the UK beats countries like Russia. In Russia, they would just say 3>1 case closed. I had hoped than in the UK they would say - BioWare said 16 endings, but with common sense, it looks like 3 with cosmetic sub-differences.

If I order a tea in Russia and they put one single leaf into the cup plus hot water, I have no rights. I ordered "tea" and I got "tea". Case closed. In the UK, they would say "he was technically served "tea" as per the strict, formal ingredients, but the cafe nevertheless ripped the customer off". Major disappointment in the 'Russian' way the ASA dealt with this. The UK legal-regulatory system is admired for its "substance over form" (common sense) approach.
Gaxkang is offline

Gaxkang

Sentinel

#50

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 323

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 16:39
Originally Posted by Gaxkang View Post
Well this is where the UK beats countries like Russia. In Russia, they would just say 3>1 case closed. I had hoped than in the UK they would say - BioWare said 16 endings, but with common sense, it looks like 3 with cosmetic sub-differences.
But Bioware didn't say 16 endings in any advert that was complained about in the UK, it's just 'powerful outcomes'. That's demonstrably the case both literally and common-sensically.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

June 19th, 2012, 19:19
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Do these really not exist in your country? They are organisations that are designed to carry out a purpose without (financial) profit making factoring into decisions.

The word profit has a different meaning in that context than it's use in a 'not-for-profit organisation' as I spoke of. The latter is talking about financial profit - an actual entity - a profit, the former is using profit as a word for any positive benefit, ie you profit from something. The two aren't interchangeable.
Sterile.
It changes nothing. Financial profit or any other kind of profit. Because those agencies rely on the regulated to exist.

You didn't provide any context to your statement "their speech is not regulated" so assumed there was no specific context. In that situation it's true - developers have just as much regulation in speech as we do.
The thread does not hint about a specific context?
If you're talking about advertising, then they have exactly the same regulation in advertising as we do, that is, determined by the laws of the land in which they are advertising. In the UK that's regulated by various bodies, of which the ASA is the first call of action in the case of media advertising. This thread is talking about the ASA, therefore I presume we are talking about the advertising that the ASA covers. If you're talking about other forms of marketing such as development blogs etc. then the ASA don't cover that, so it's irrelevant to a discussion about the ASA (not to say it's not an interesting topic in and of itself - it is).
Impossible to understand. Developpment blogs are not media? A blog is not a medium?
Etc…
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#52

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,012
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Mass Effect 3 - Advertising Standards Agency Complaint Not Upheld
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch