ASA orders Activision to can 'misleading' Call of Duty ads

By Tom Bramwell Published 22 February, 2006

'Common practice' says publisher.

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints from three television viewers that adverts depicting scenes from Activision title Call of Duty 2 and its current generation console counterpart CoD2: Big Red One were misleading, and declared that they must not be shown again in their present forms.

The adjudication, published today, is likely to send shockwaves through the industry as it focuses on the question of whether pre-rendered footage is an acceptable representation of a computer game - in its defence, Activision didn't argue that it was, but rather that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice".

In this case, the ASA received three complaints - two concerning Call of Duty 2 (PC, Xbox 360) and one concerning Big Red One (PS2, Xbox, Cube), both of which argued that the graphics used in the advert were superior to that of the game itself, and that viewers were being misled on those grounds.

The ASA's investigation revealed that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) understood the adverts to be made of scenes taken from the games themselves, although apparently no checks were made because it wasn't until afterward, when contacting Activision about the complaints, that it was informed by the publisher that the computer-generated scenes had been produced solely for the ads. "They said they therefore immediately made the ads unacceptable for broadcast as they did not consider that this was common practice in such ads."

"The ASA noted that the ads did not include any indication that the images shown did not reflect the quality of graphics of the games. While the scenes used communicated the themes of the game, they were not accurate representations of the graphics in the games themselves. We considered that this was misleading.

"The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications). They must not be shown again in their present forms," the adjudication concluded.

Activision, for its part, argued that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice" and that "they had not been told that it was not acceptable to use material created specially for an ad in this way" and had acted "in good faith".

With that defence regarded as insufficient by the ASA, the adjudication is likely to raise concerns for other publishers who uniformly use rendered footage to publicise computer games - in print as well as during television adverts - at the prospect of similar complaints being dealt with in much the same way.

Activision UK could not comment on the ASA adjudication at the time of publication.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (63) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Darkedge #1 6 years ago

    Sony take note
    ;)

  • quantumsheep #2 6 years ago

    And EA with its Harry Potter games ;)

  • Talha #3 6 years ago

    There goes 90% of game advertising down the drain!

  • Teeth #4 6 years ago

    Ace, maybe they can extend this to promotional trailers and screenshots too.

    Ah, who am I kiddin'

  • HarryB #5 6 years ago

    how stupid are gamers!? its so easy to tell whats the game and what isnt
    but i would like it if they didnt use videos so its all good

  • Talha #6 6 years ago

    Funny how they failed to notice that Call of Duty 2 (PC, X360) and Call of Duty 2: Big Red One are not the same game. Or has no one thought of fair representation as far as game names are concerned?

  • smelly #7 6 years ago

    "And EA with its Harry Potter games ;) "

    I think you'll find the HP adverts are allowed as it says on screen "not in game footage"

  • gizmo #8 6 years ago

    About bloomin time. Game footage only please.

  • smelly #9 6 years ago

    "how stupid are gamers!? its so easy to tell whats the game and what isnt"


    Erm how many people still believe that killzone footage is real?

  • asphaltcowboy #10 6 years ago

    The Harry Potter ones are ridiculous! How many kids will be reading the "Not in-game footage" and how many will be busy being WOWed by the AMAAZZZZZING graphics? The same goes for the awful Fantastic 4 advert!

  • LetsGo #11 6 years ago

    "how stupid are gamers!? its so easy to tell whats the game and what isnt"

    Errm you seen the All Format charts over the last year? Nuff' said!

  • groovychainsaw #12 6 years ago

    I agree, game footage only please, not for 'hardcore' gamers, but so less chavs keep buying whatever EA trash gets put out with nice pre-rendered scenes on TV
    ( I can wish, cant I?)

  • HarryB #13 6 years ago

    yes, like i said...STUPID

  • kangarootoo #14 6 years ago

    Hurrah!!

    Pre-rendered footage in TV ads in a real bugbear of mine. This isn't the 80s when you were lucky if you got an "artists impression" on the back of your Atari 2600 game. The Harry Potter and X-Men games stick in recent memory.

    I'm sure Activision believed they were acting within the law (if only just). But arguing that it is "common practice" is no excuse at all in any part of law. Whichever barrister dug that one out needs a kick up the arse.

  • kangarootoo #15 6 years ago

    @smelly

    "I think you'll find the HP adverts are allowed as it says on screen "not in game footage""

    I agree that it is slightly different as it is stated (as is the case in the X-Men ad I saw I believe), but its still shifty.

  • spidermanalf #16 6 years ago

    Its like old screenshots on the back of C64 games. In the tiniest print possible it said 'amiga screenshots' same trick as this!

  • HarryB #17 6 years ago

    well i dont understand it anyway... it's like advertising a vauxhall by showing a bmw and then saying "this is not the actual car"

  • dbeamish #18 6 years ago

    the footage from the COD2 360 game adverts was footage which wasn't even renders from the game .. it was renders of an interpretation of a level from the the game made to look a lot better than even the cut scenes in game.

    I thought it was appaling and I'm glad to hear this ruling.

  • Machetazo #19 6 years ago

    From the article:
    "The ASA noted that the ads did not include any indication that the images shown did not reflect the quality of graphics of the games. While the scenes used communicated the themes of the game, they were not accurate representations of the graphics in the games themselves. We considered that this was misleading."

    The Call of Duty issue's more tricky, because of next-gen...
    Ask someone who's not seen CoD2 before what they think Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360 looks like...'Well, there was this cool ad on TV the other night...'
    Then, as another example, a relative heads off to the store, on juniors recommendation to grab that cool "Big Red One" which they mistakenly assume is COD2 with lower visual quality, and a lower price point to justify it, for current-gen consoles.

    Those ads are targetting mainstream consumers, not just games enthusiasts. They should endeavour not to be misleading, with an emphasis on informing and enticing.

    I agree with the ASA's decision, here.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 12:09

  • ecureuil #20 6 years ago

    YES, this is great. I hate that ad so much, because I know it's not in game footage. Surely even a short clip of gameplay amongst all that video wouldn't have been so difficult.

    Not everyone is a hardcore gamer, and a lot of people don't realise that it's just video. I know someone who bought that game because they thought it looked like that, it's not that they are stupid, it's just that they don't follow games enough to know any better.

  • Tweakmonkey #21 6 years ago

    The standards agency should clamp down. There should be a warning on all EA products.

  • MrAtheist #22 6 years ago

    What next, ASA going to lay the smackdown on Vauxhall - "Vauxhall Corsa does not actually play hide & seek with other Corsas" OUTRAGE

    Did anyone out there really think it was in game footage? Except for Mr Dime..Bar? :)

  • Zuiyo #23 6 years ago

    It might be common practice and probably they acted in good faith but still, I'd rather watch ingame footage so I know what I'm getting when I pay bloody 40 quid.

  • ED209 #24 6 years ago

    Companies should take a leaf out of Rockstar's book with the GTA ads....
    then again they did look a bit shit.

    Didn't do sales any harm though! (and that's a fact, cos i'm guessing).

  • InfiniteFury #25 6 years ago

    I think it's a very very dodgy issue when it comes to next-gen and I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the majority of people who have never seen the 360 in action to assume that's real footage when there is no warning at all. Put it this way, what do you think Activision's motives were? To capture the feel or mislead people?

    On a more general note - 'bout bloody time.

  • Talha #26 6 years ago

    I fully agree with the decision. I know most forum posters here don't realize this, but average people cannot distinguish between a TV ad video and in-game footage. In my opinion, even a warning message is insufficient to convey this. Then again, anyone remember that Audi Quattro ad where the car was shown scaling a wall in Spider-man fashion?

    But in typical VW spirit, they admitted they were exaggerating right within the ad.

  • Moogrose #27 6 years ago

    Do people actually buy games based soley on their impressions of a television commercial? - i mean... like, wow.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 12:30

  • GordonJ #28 6 years ago

    Do people actually buy games based soley on their impressions of a television commercial? - i mean... like, wow.

    Nah, it's bound to be half 'jobsworth' types, complaining for the sake of complaining, fighting for consumer rights :)

  • Machetazo #29 6 years ago

    ED209 wrote:
    "Companies should take a leaf out of Rockstar's book with the GTA ads....
    then again they did look a bit shit."

    I was shocked when I saw the "Welcome to the Jungle" ad for San Andreas. The game didn't look good at all in that. But then, I figured they were probably using PS2 footage (to show the lowest quality that the gamer could expect) so I opted for the Xbox version. It's fun enough, but I found it too little direction, for me.

  • UncleLou #30 6 years ago

    how stupid are gamers!? its so easy to tell whats the game and what isnt
    but i would like it if they didnt use videos so its all good

    It's not always that easy these days to tell a pre-rendered cutscene from a real ingame scene. Or imagine an ad that uses pre-rendered scenes that could be game graphics, in theory, while the real graphics are complete crap.

  • tenma #31 6 years ago

    are you serious?

    I know someone who bought that game because they thought it looked like that, it's not that they are stupid,


    Yes it is.

    ...YES, it is... :|

  • Xerx3s #32 6 years ago

    So, can we also get this for the E3 and such? :\

  • mattigan #33 6 years ago

    As with the HP ads the Advetising execs are clearly banking on punters thinking that what they see is what they are going to get, regardles of what a disclaimer that takes up less than 5% of the screen says otherwise, this sort of thing really pisses me off, what also pisses me off is that more people don't complain about this sort of thing.

    Maybe if we did, then we would see a more accurate representation of what these games are all about in adverts, and maybe just maybe, shit games wouldn't sell so well off the back of their TV ad campaigns. Who knows, it could raise the overall standard of titles released which is good for everyone.

    As the saying goes "you can't polish a turd"
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 13:46

  • LOLLERS #34 6 years ago

    it's not that they are stupid,


    Yes it is.

    ...YES, it is... :|


    HAHA yeah you're right, this ruling won't help anyone. Shit films still use in-film footage edited nicely with fancy music over the top to make them look good and idiots still go to watch them, so therefore all film advertising should be banned IMO.

    It's not like advertising a Vaukhall by showing a BMW, it's like advertising a Vauxhall by showing it driving fast and having having good looking people driving them, which is obviously a lie.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 13:48

  • kangarootoo #35 6 years ago

    "Do people actually buy games based soley on their impressions of a television commercial? - i mean... like, wow."

    80% of game sales in the UK are not based on the purchaser reading a review. Most game sales are based on advertising of some sort. That may be a TV advert, it may be a franchise association, it may be a sequel association.

    For those getting all high brow about this (not you Moogrose, just making a general point here) you could easily exchange your title of "stupid people" or "chavs" for "people who have other hobbies besides games and really don't give a crap whether the Killzone trailer is real or not".

    No need to paint people as stupid, just because they don't share your obsession. Advertising should be clear and not misleading whether it is advertising games, cars, skiiing holidays or the price of gas. I'm sure we can all agree that is a good thing.

  • MyWifeNowDave #36 6 years ago

    Has anyone got a link to this advert? I'm blessed with not having a TV in the house :)

  • swede #37 6 years ago

    Hehe seeing the sega classics collection banner at the top of the page reminds me of the U.S.Gold packaging of OutRun. For anyone who cant remember or is too young, all versions (C64, speccy etc.) had screenshots from the arcade version on the back and in the magazine ads. As kangarootoo pointed out Atari had those great hand drawn 'screenshots' on their 2600 cart boxes (complete with motion blur!).

    Ahhh the good old days.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 13:52

  • Triggerhappytel #38 6 years ago

    I bet you most of the complaints stemmed from young kids seeing the adverts and being WOWed by the graphics. Then, when the parents buy the game for said brat, young bratty starts playing something that looks nothing like the TV ad. So bratty starts to cry and gives parents grief who then make a complaint to the ASA.

    To be fair though, Activision are being picked on as this does happen all the time. Maybe to change the adverts' parameters would be a good thing.

  • Freek #39 6 years ago

    Except that using intro footage to show the story, or target videos of games that do not exist to show where the teams wants to go to the press, is entirly different from making a prerendered commercial that has nothing what so ever do with the game.

  • Blerk #40 6 years ago

    I'd like a move back to proper 'in-game' screenshots instead of the pointless, obviously-staged bullshots we get these days.

  • Hunam85 #41 6 years ago

    Common Sense finally gets a look in!

  • fiery_jackass #42 6 years ago

    hurrah!
    Like swede, I remember the shenanigans back in the day when the friggers would put all sorts on the back of spectrum games. Rendered footage has little place in a games advert, it's like the old pictures of nudey sea monkey princesses that got me all excited about buying a packet of dried shrimps all those years ago

    Likewise, (like 3DO games, I think) I think they should be forced to let you know on the box that a game has crappy PAL conversion borders in place, squishing all the graphics

  • morriss #43 6 years ago

    I'd like a move back to proper 'in-game' screenshots instead of the pointless, obviously-staged bullshots we get these days.

    +1

  • peterfll #44 6 years ago

    But... but.... what would Sony show at this years E3?

    10 minutes of a blank screen.

  • alexg #45 6 years ago

    I remember that ad - purely because it illustrated how far games STILL have to go.

    Anyone who hadn't seen the actual game in action would definitely have been fooled - because that would have been what anyone would expect from supposed NEXT generation, not the high res PS2 ports still crawling out.

  • t8yman #46 6 years ago

    I am surprised the ASA hasnt prosecuted AV and IW on the grounds that the advertised multiplayer game doesnt fucking exist

  • Stormflood_UK #47 6 years ago

    There's a big difference between adverts that use CGI, and adverts that simulate gameplay using CGI - i.e. the COD2 ads (or KZ2). The latter is purposely misleading, and I'm all for this ruling.

  • 8bitMofo #48 6 years ago

    Jesus Christ, the industry really IS getting it's act together!

  • Eighthours #49 6 years ago

    Bloody hell, imagine how different this place would have been if, at E3 2005, Sony weren't allowed to pass off pre-rendered footage as ingame stuff! There would have been no "real next gen" story, that's for sure, and no anti-360 conspiracy theories at all.

    Promise me you're not going to fall for the former again this year, EG. I'm begging you. ;)

    As for Killzone 2, yes a surprising number of Sony fanboys still think that the footage is real, no matter how carefully the evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

  • alexg #50 6 years ago

    Yes but KZ2 wasn't advertised on TV blatantly purporting to be in-game footage

  • manic_mouse #51 6 years ago

    "Yes but KZ2 wasn't advertised on TV blatantly purporting to be in-game footage"

    No, it was shown by Sony at E3 as a game being made on the PS3. At least the adverts have "not actual footage" in small print on the screen. If anything Killzone 2, and most of Sony's PS3 "footage", is more misleading: Deliberately designed to look like in game footage and shown as a "PS3 game" with no disclaimer anywhere in sight.

    "But... but.... what would Sony show at this years E3?

    10 minutes of a blank screen."

    This make me laugh. Just think about what will happen:

    EG: "The Real Next-Gen (tm): Sony's amazing blank screen!"

    To this day I'm still shocked that EG bought what was clearly a load of pre-rendered "target-footage" to be the real deal.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/06 @ 20:42

  • alexg #52 6 years ago

    I don't care about the KZ2 thing and I don't think many people out in the real world do either. If Sony Or MS or ANYONE can get a game to look that good or near it, fair play to them. It was a promo at a trade show - no one can take it too seriously. However, advertising CoD2 on national TV in the run up to Christmas in such a misleading way - to take advantage of people's ignorance of a much touted NEXT-generation console- is a whole different story.

  • Kami #53 6 years ago

    I still laugh my ass off at EG's ill-fated "Nintendo Concedes Defeat" headline, which they unceremoniously pulled after some of us rightly pointed out that no such thing had happened and it was EG-E3-totally-unprofessional bullshit - how that headline ever managed to see the brief hour-or-so of light that it did still boggles the mind somewhat... what? OK, ok, I'll leave it rest now...

    But I'm not that concerned at pre-rendered footage. I'd of course like to see the game in action but that is why there are demos, reviews and screenshots online. Few people blind-buy games these days, looking at the screenshots on the back of the case generally if in any doubt. If you truly blind-buy a game, you're taking a chance, and if it doesn't work out well for you - tough shit.

    Of course this ruling makes sense, but what of those games which have gotten away? WHy pick on ONE game? Why not address the industry as a whole, and pick on other companies who use this method in their advertising?

    I smell a scapegoat...

  • Talha #54 6 years ago

    It is funny as hell to see people using this to continue their habit of Sony-hating, as well as EG hating. Yes, I admit, they used pre-rendered footage. But are they the only company doing that? That has been the practice for the whole gaming industry, but some people here have too narrow a vision to realize that. After all, even greater advances in context have been made in recent years on many platforms. Anyone remembers a little game called Far Cry? What it delivered bordered on the impossible for that time, and even now it has not been replicated by any other games. No one even has the guts to make a feeble imitation of Far Cry.

    Just one more example: Fight Night Round 3. It was shown at E3 to spectacular effect (as part of the PS3 launch reel) and it is EVERY BIT AS REAL on X360 now. That is how many of us think that Sony footage at E3 might, or might not represent in-game quality.

    Activision gets sued for flasely enhancing CoD2 footage. Activision suffers. Therefore, Sony is evil.

    Pathetic.

  • Triggerhappytel #55 6 years ago

    "I'd of course like to see the game in action but that is why there are demos, reviews and screenshots online. Few people blind-buy games these days, looking at the screenshots on the back of the case generally if in any doubt. If you truly blind-buy a game, you're taking a chance, and if it doesn't work out well for you - tough shit."

    Hmmm, I completely disagree. Most of the games market are casual gamers who probably don't bother to check out new releases and reviews online. And what about parents who buy presents for their children? I'll bet most of them go by the case design and possibly (ill-informed) shop staff. I think the likes of us who frequent sites like EG are leaning towards being hardcore gamers, and are in the vast minority.

  • Moogrose #56 6 years ago

    "80% of game sales in the UK are not based on the purchaser reading a review. Most game sales are based on advertising of some sort. That may be a TV advert, it may be a franchise association, it may be a sequel association.

    For those getting all high brow about this (not you Moogrose, just making a general point here) you could easily exchange your title of "stupid people" or "chavs" for "people who have other hobbies besides games and really don't give a crap whether the Killzone trailer is real or not".

    No need to paint people as stupid, just because they don't share your obsession. Advertising should be clear and not misleading whether it is advertising games, cars, skiiing holidays or the price of gas. I'm sure we can all agree that is a good thing. "

    Indeed. I was thinking that game purchases aren't exactly impulse purchases so people would take time to think about it - it is also, depending on your sitting, not a cheap thing to buy without some research. that is all. I'm not saying those that make those purchases are stupid, just not as informed as they could be is all.

    I agree though - advertising should not be misleading, and these ads obviously are.
    Edited by 1 at 23/02/06 @ 09:18

  • Eighthours #57 6 years ago

    It is funny as hell to see people using this to continue their habit of Sony-hating, as well as EG hating.

    How does objecting to smoke and mirrors equate to "Sony hatred"? Surely ignoring this practise and screaming blue murder instead should go down as "Sony fanboyism"?

    As for EG hatred, there isn't any. We just don't want them to take everything they see at this year's E3 at face value, and I'm sure they won't.

    By the way, did Activision actually use pre-rendered footage for the COD2 advert as well as the Big Red One ad? Never saw that...

  • manic_mouse #58 6 years ago

    "to take advantage of people's ignorance of a much touted NEXT-generation console"

    As I said, exactly like the Killzone 2 "demo", except that it never had a disclaimer. Saying "you don't care about KZ2" doesn't change the fact that it's MORE misleading than any CoD TV advert, whether or not it's on TV. It was footage shown clearly to make people believe that it was in-game, with no disclaimer anywhere in sight. It was advertising not only the PS3's technical capibilities but also the game, and it was all lies.

    Talha: "Just one more example: Fight Night Round 3. It was shown at E3 to spectacular effect (as part of the PS3 launch reel) and it is EVERY BIT AS REAL on X360 now. That is how many of us think that Sony footage at E3 might, or might not represent in-game quality."

    So you're saying that because Fight Night, a game well into development on the 360 and shown in real-time (like UT), was real then the CGI was real? Can anyone see the flaw is this logic?

    KZ2 may represent what will be possible in many year on the PS3, but showing the game off in a way that is clearly designed to fool the watcher into believing that it is running like that right now is misleading. Just look how EG interpreted it, and they're professional journos. Sony never said "This isn't running on the PS3", or "This is target footage". They said, "This is the PS3" and showed off Killzone 2.

    And in a way Sony have shot themselves in the foot, because with Killzone they have set an extremely high bar for their games graphically. What if Killzone arrives and it doesn't look as good or run 60fps like the "demo"?

  • Eighthours #59 6 years ago

    What if Killzone arrives and it doesn't look as good or run 60fps like the "demo"?

    This is one of the reasons why E3 this year is going to be so interesting. Will Killzone be shown? Will it be playable? What will it look like? The answers could turn out to be very important.

  • Triggerhappytel #60 6 years ago

    "This is one of the reasons why E3 this year is going to be so interesting. Will Killzone be shown? Will it be playable? What will it look like? The answers could turn out to be very important."

    Personally, I'm much more interested to see games like I-8, Motorstorm and Lair in action.

    Killzone shcmillzone.

    Should be a good E3 though. I hope Ninty has lots of Rev stuff to show us too.

  • MyWifeNowDave #61 6 years ago

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc id=-8289515683019644796&q=call+of+duty

    Is this the video theyre talking about? It all looks ingame to me, from what I remember of the PC version

  • urban #62 6 years ago

    pre rendered scenes are pretty. but they shouldnt be used in adverts.

    only at the start of a game to lay the world infront of you

  • mrman #63 6 years ago

    This is why demos are so important. thats the only way to cut the bullshit and see if a game is actualyl any fun or any good.
    And 'in-game footage' means shit if its captrued on a liquid-nitrogen cooled l33tninjaPentium7800. Thats the beauty of a demo, there is nowhere to hide.
    When games dont have a demo, they just dont get a sale from me, hype or no hype.