Sony removes naughty WipEout advert

By Robert Purchese Published 4 August, 2009

In-game ads shouldn't increase load time.

Sony has told Eurogamer that the in-game advert causing an increase WipEout HD load-times has been binned.

"The ad has been removed from WipEout HD and we are investigating the situation to ensure that any in-game advertising does not affect gameplay," said a spokesperson for the platform holder.

Double Fusion announced a deal with Sony yesterday to produce "dynamic" in-game adverts for a "handful" of titles, of which WipEout HD is the first.

The first examples of the video ads, however, prolonged loading times before races, as a user-made video on YouTube demonstrates.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (63) 3 years ago

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

  • mkreku #1 3 years ago

    That was quick.. I only just read the news article complaining about this :D

  • Pirotic #2 3 years ago

    Good move by Sony. But It's a shame that neither of the companies who are actually making money from these adverts pulled it of their own accord first. Adding adverts into a game you've already sold is a pretty lame move, but then waiting until Sony come and slap your wrist for degrading the game before doing anything about it is even worse.
    Edited by 2 at 04/08/09 @ 10:16

  • andijames #3 3 years ago

    Aye me too. Shows that they actually care about the gaming experience per se. Maybe they didn't know the ads that double fusion were placing in the game were too long and extending the loading times?

  • Eraysor #4 3 years ago

    It ruins Wipeout's futuristic tone when you have an advert for a bank in the middle of it. I didn't mind the old advertising billboards around the tracks, but simply placing a big advert on the loading screen is something I do not want. Games with adverts like that are generally released for free.

  • optimusprym8 #5 3 years ago

    Am perfectly happy to have adverts in a game that's free-2-play since it has to be paid for somehow but in a game that I have paid for, fuck right off!

  • kangarootoo #6 3 years ago

    Good swift response. But a pity it took public scrutiny for it to happen.


    @Pirotic (edit: and others talking about refunds)

    "Adding adverts into a game you've already sold is a pretty lame move"

    Please lets not let this discussion degrade into artificially binary "paid for or not paid for" statements.

    The amount you pay for a game varies, the amount the game costs to make varies, the amount that games makes from sales varies, and the costs that may or may not be recouped from in game ads vary.

    Its a complex business, far more complex than a discussion that sits on terms like "I've paid for the game already so it should be ad free".
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 10:18

  • Fatbobbybob #7 3 years ago

    I didn't see any adverts when I bought this over the weekend, I presume it's just for the US version? I'd be happy with a siuation whereby the game was free with adverts or at least cheaper but then normal price without adverts. At least then we'd be able choose. I also agree that it has to fit within the theme of the game which is very important in a game like Wipeout.

  • kangarootoo #8 3 years ago

    How much did WipeoutHD cost?

  • kangarootoo #9 3 years ago

    "I'd be happy with a siuation whereby the game was free with adverts or at least cheaper but then normal price without adverts"

    A good suggestion.

  • Snidesworth #10 3 years ago

    I love Wipeout. I love the PS3, it's entrance into the house having rendered the 360 almost obsolete. This, though, is a load of crap.

  • Les #11 3 years ago

    "Its a complex business, far more complex than a discussion that sits on terms like "I've paid for the game already so it should be ad free"."

    True. I'm not a big fan of in-game advertising and IMO it would be great if the industry would draft a sort of code of conduct related to it. An article in such a code could be to make it clear to the consumer upfront that the game he/she purchases will feature advertising so that the consumer can make an informed buy decision.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #12 3 years ago

    I don't have an issue with ad-supported games as such, if it means we're getting the game free (QuakeLive) or at a reduced cost. It's a win-win solution - the customer gets a free/cheaper game, and the publisher gets a longer-term form of financial income.

    The issue here is that it was added post-sale, which is rather low. It's irrelevent if the game was only £11.99, people didn't pay £11.99 for an ad-supported game. There needs to be greater transparency regarding issues like this.

  • discobunnywalker #13 3 years ago

    They had adverts, must admit I did not even notice, anyone know what they were advertising??

  • El-Dev #14 3 years ago

    Ads in games is a total disgrace, there is no excuse or reason for them.

    Except when it's a situation where advertising adds to the realism, hoardings at the side of the pitch on football games, race tracks etc.

  • mr_ruberfon #15 3 years ago


    "Its a complex business, far more complex than a discussion that sits on terms like "I've paid for the game already so it should be ad free"."
    Er, no, it's that simple. I bought a game without ads, for a price scee set. Please don't fill it with ads now. Especially, as someone said, ones that ruin the futuristic feel of the game.

  • Moz #16 3 years ago

    If the ad effects the game experience then thats bad.

    But I don't see why people complain about adverts in games they've paid for, there are ads in everything else you pay for, at the start of movies in the cinema, on SKY & Virgin TV, hell half the clothes we buy are little more than adverts.

    If it doesn't effect the experience I don't see the problem. I just see it as more money towards developing games and keeping the cost down for the consumer.

  • viper_h #17 3 years ago

    lol that Wipeout "HD" looks like a monocolour boring pile of crap.

  • Eraysor #18 3 years ago

    Viper, that's Zone mode...

  • BlueDot #19 3 years ago

    I hate paying for movies dvd/bluray then having to watch the adverts at the start. I was watching the WallE bluray with my son the other day and it took more than a minute to get to the main menu and I was thinking that if I had pirated the movie then I wouldn't have to put up with the bullshit.
    Advertisers are not happy until they can fill ever available space and every moment of your time with their "branding".
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 11:17

  • kangarootoo #20 3 years ago

    @MilkybKid1985

    You know, just once it would be nice for a discussion to take place on here that didn't contain a single "so you are saying..." question, that is swiftly followed by a ludicrous example.

    Case in point.

    "So you are happy that the game you are playing can one day patch up and force you to watch an advert with each loading screen, even offline SP?"

    No. Next question.


    "I know its an ott suggestion but its an honest question"

    Well it might be a fair question to ask if you has started the sentence "Would you...". But front loading it with the old favourite "So you would...." is something else entirely.

    I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your questions, as they all boil down to the usual strawman tosh.


    This is my stand point. So please don't follow this with any more "So you are saying..." business. The way to tell what I am saying is to read my own words, and if I've not said it... well, I've not said it.


    In-game advertising is a way to create revenue for a game. Another way to create revenue is to charge players to buy the game. There is perhaps a middle ground where some revenue is generated from each channel.

    If either approach affects the experience of the player negatively, that is a bad thing. And if a publisher does indeed negatively affect the player experience, players should let them know. If they fix the issue, say thankyou. And if they don't, avoid buying the sequel and tell the publisher why.


    "Paid for game" is not a binary state. "Paid £5 for a game" is. "Paid £50 for a game that will never contain advertising" is as well. See? Lots of options.

    I don't have an agenda here, I'm not saying badly placed ads in games a great. If you assume I am saying that, then perhaps you will feel personally sleighted and set out to trash what I am saying.

    No doubt if you set out to create some nonsense extreme that is clearly shit for gamers AND pretend that is my actual standpoint in order to undermine what I am saying, you will suceed. But you won't have actually achieved anything other than to stifle discussion of a complex subject. And you will then sit happily in your tower, feeling like you made a difference.

    /that got a bit stroppy at the end, but I hope you take my point.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 11:22

  • mr_ruberfon #21 3 years ago

    But I don't see why people complain about adverts in games they've paid for, there are ads in everything else you pay for, at the start of movies in the cinema, on SKY & Virgin TV, hell half the clothes we buy are little more than adverts.


    In those examples you know about the ads at the time of purchase and can make a purchasing decision based upon that.

  • kangarootoo #22 3 years ago

    @mr_ruberfon

    "Especially, as someone said, ones that ruin the futuristic feel of the game."

    Really? Are we saying that in the future, there will be no advertising at sporting events? I am of the mind that well placed adverts (not this particular case in point) can improve the realism of a game or film. Badly placed ads obviously don't, but there is a difference between those two examples that many struggle to spot.

  • Doctor_What #23 3 years ago

    EA have been doing this for years. NFS and Burnout Paradise do it, and people weren't up in arms about those.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #24 3 years ago

    pretty sure this is US only anyway, i have been playing it quite a lot since fury came out and have seen no advertising,

  • Bumbuliuz #25 3 years ago

    Why are there ads in a game that you have to buy to play? Seems a bit unfair to suffer trough watching ads while the game loads.

  • Moz #26 3 years ago

    Why are there ads in a game that you have to buy to play? Seems a bit unfair to suffer trough watching ads while the game loads.

    it's hardly suffering now is it!!! If it makes the load times longer then that's a problem, but other than that it's just the load screen you can just look away from the screen if you find the ads that offensive.

  • mkreku #27 3 years ago

    But Wipeout has always been around the yar 2100 or so, right? What kind of contemporary ads do fit in that setting? Just as much as I don't want to see Coca Cola bottles in my medieval fantasy RPG, I don't want Ford Fiesta ads in my futuristic racing either.

  • mr_ruberfon #28 3 years ago

    @ kangaratoo - we'll probably be fed ads directly to impulse buy part of our brain or something in the future, but a current ad looks silly in a game set 100 years from now.

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    Coca Cola has a few thousand years left in it yet, I'm sure :)

  • bioreit #30 3 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    I agree with almost everything you said - especially when dealing with strawman arguments....

    But I think the main objection here (which I think you are also implying you object to) is that in a paid-for game that previously had no ads, to have ads introduced that then have a detrimental effect on user experience is A Bad Thing.

    Although obviously there's a sliding scale:

    If Battlefield 1943 decided to incorporate loading screen ads in return for 'free' DLC, pretty ok with that to be honest.

    If Modern Warfare 2 delayed the start of multiplayer matches to bring you a 1 minute long Cillit Band advert, then that's just plain nasty.

    The imaginary sliding scale of my dreams relates not only to types of games (value, genre, expandability) but also to the ads themselves (type, length, positioning).

  • teabagger #31 3 years ago

    I don't have a massive objection to the idea of adverts in games. However to be acceptable they need to be in keeping with the game, and in fact if done correctly they can actually add to the authenticity of the game-world.

    Take Mass Effect which I'm currently playing (yeah I know, been busy...), clearly throwing in a current real-world advert for Coke somewhere on a loading screen is going to out of place, break your suspension of disbelief and ruin the game experience.

    But, it's entirely believable that a future would have commercial advertising possibly even with surviving recognised brands and so, done in the right way & making it an intrinsic part of the environment, not only could an advert for Coke be acceptable I think it could even add authenticity to the game world.

    This wouldn't work for everything, but you get the idea.


    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 11:52

  • kangarootoo #32 3 years ago

    @MilkybKid1985

    "I'm fine with my points being countered, but your points did start to become more like a personal attack."

    Well ok, I apologise. I just ran out of patience :)


    "Sure you can complain to sony, but it would require a lot of people for it to be taken notice off."

    Well it happened in this case, and I'm not sure how many people complained. If people don't buy a sequel because of bad practices, publishers care about that. ALSO, they want people to keep playing so they can see the ads. And you be surprised how few people need to complain for something to get noticed (the ITC state that for every complain they receive, and average of 600 hundred other people were offended but didn't lodge a complaint).

  • SeesThroughAll #33 3 years ago

    What I'm wondering is why aren't more adverts in Home? Wasn't Home designed as an advertising hub?

    Why are they messing with games instead?

    BTW, Burnout Paradise has had ads for a long time (the Obama campaign used it in the US, in fact), and it never bothered me.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 12:03

  • actionfitz #34 3 years ago

    personally I believe this sort of stuff should be hammered out beforehand. when users are fully aware that their game will feature in game ads etc and make their purchase regardless then they are in effect agreeing with the policy.
    But to retrofit older games with this stuff is rather cheeky imo.
    Yes they have every right to do stuff like this to finance ongoing support for a titles ongoing support and DLC etc. (in fact I think thats quite clever of them).
    but for a single player release... I can see where some might get upset.

  • Chufty #35 3 years ago

    Advertising does not make something free. It's the case in every other walk of life and gamers really need to accept it.

    In the UK, we pay a TV license (yes it goes to commercial TV companies as well as the BBC), some of us pay for Sky TV (where there are MORE adverts than anywhere else), Virgin Media etc.

    We pay for cinema tickets. The cinema foyer is littered with ads. The film starts only after 20 minutes of ads, and the film is awash with product placements.

    We even pay for a sodding bus ticket despite the big advert on the side of the bus advertising the latest Hugh Grant rom-com.

    Face it guys, advertising will be de facto in games within 5 years, and the best way to deal with it is to leran to live with it and take it for granted, as you do everywhere else.

    +1 for all of kangarootoo's comments.

  • Petulant_Radish #36 3 years ago

    There's no more adverts on Sky as there is on ITV et al.

  • ebony69 #37 3 years ago

    milky - dont forget ITV's F1 coverage and I believe the Yanks couldn't possibly go through a football match without adds (either their rules or ours). So it is very common in the real world for our already paid for entertainment to be disrupted by ads.

    My biggest beef is with the BBC which has more advertising (of itself) on both its TV and Radio channels than is stomachable!!! I despise the BBC, not for its adverts, but for its aloof position of pretending to be above adverts and then absolutely swamping its media with them.

  • RobotRocker #38 3 years ago

    @ Doctor_What

    EA use billboards with live advertising in those games. They are the best way to use advertising since they only pop into your mind for a few seconds at most and usually dont ruin the immersion (Or in some games like Mercinaries 2, you can destroy them and get a bonus for them). Its when they are intergrated to the point where they are near invisble or add to the immersion like in sports games where they are tollerable.

    Hell, going back to WipEout. 2097 had a great intergration with the Red Bull adverts by intergrating them with the Designers Republic's style so you would see RB ads in a very furturistic style on some of the tracks. It worked really well and never took players out of the game while still working as a Red Bull advert as the style was consistent and fit with the game.

    Ads on the load screen take every player out of the immersion completley. Particuarly in games like WipEout where the style of the game is just as integral to it as the gameplay. If the pack was offered for free with adverts (EA Made packs for NFS: ProStreet and Army of Two with sponsorship. Helped they were free though). Then its understandable. Since they are asking people to pay an extra £12 on top of it. Its bullshit and Sony should be thinking up an apology for even considering this right away.

  • jewpetto #39 3 years ago

    only crapstation has adverts. wipe-my-ass-out more like.

  • el_pollo_diablo #40 3 years ago

    Advertisers take note:

    If your advert annoys me in any way, I'm LESS likely to but your shitty product. Not more.

  • sarcasmoidosis #41 3 years ago

    "What I'm wondering is why aren't more adverts in Home? Wasn't Home designed as an advertising hub? "

    Because nobody's there to see them.

  • Teamallstar #42 3 years ago

    $ony must really be struggling to make money if this is how low they are willing to stoop.

    Ultimate hand caught in the cookie jar.

    I am so used to sitting around waiting for my PS3 to load and install updates and then load and install games and then load and install updates to the games, that I probably would not have realised an extra 10 seconds of loading for a level on Wipeout.

  • kangarootoo #43 3 years ago

    @MilkybKid1985

    "burnout paradise is a good example of this working, battlefield 2142 is an example of it done wrong, with bright white lloyds tsb adverts on billboards in a dark destroyed landscape"

    Now this is what I like you see, factual references that show two outcomes (one positive, one negative) that differ based on their details. There are plenty of examples out there, so none of us need to resort to imagining up new ones.

    Advertising is a tool. Like all tools, the quality of the results depend more on HOW the tool is used than WHAT is actually is. I completely agree that advertising in games can be abused, believe me I do.

  • Super_Zee #44 3 years ago

    Sneaking ads into a game that I've already paid for is just bullshit, Sony. Not acceptable.

  • Arwin #45 3 years ago

    There's a lot of games you've payed for that have adds in them. I'm not a fan of that, but it's ok as long as its not intrusive - in Burnout for instance, it kind of suits the city to have adds - more realistic even. ;) I don't know how I feel about having an add in a load screen, especially if it has sound.

    The 360's dashboard having adds after you have first bought the console AND then paid 59,99 euro a year for your Live subscription though ... yikes.

  • kangarootoo #46 3 years ago

    Not buying the sequels is an option. Aside from that there is probably not much you can do. Game EULAs are pretty expansive, usually saying something like "we can do what we like".

    That said, the power of not buying a sequel should be undervalued. If games don't sell, nothing else matters. And if any publisher thought heavy handed advertising was going to harm sales, they would think twice. No sales means no advertising revenue (as any sponsor will want to see viewing predictions).

    However, in this case I would be wary of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The previously intrusive ads have been removed, so Sony have responded. If they continue to do so, there shouldn't be major need for worry. There will always be a few "no ads under any circumstances" people, such as we have seen in this thread, but most people don't really care so long as gameplay isn't harmed.

  • stepneg #47 3 years ago

    I don't mind the ads but where is our cut, they are making money after the games release and we are getting nothing but added adverts? They should chuck out a few free maps which can be sponsored by the new ad's, sticking them onto the game where they were not before is a load of crap.

  • Chufty #48 3 years ago

    Why, exactly, do ads on a loading screen 'ruin the immersion'. Loading screens themselves ruin the immersion, with or without adverts. They are not part of the game, they're a necessary prelude to it.

    Your immersion doesn't start until the game is loaded.

  • kangarootoo #49 3 years ago

    @stepneg

    1. Your cut perhaps comes in the form of a reduced sale price.

    2. Who on earth said the customer was entitled to a cut of the profits? Seriously, what business school on earth produced that idea?

    There is such a related thing I suppose, its called a dividend, but it requires you to invest money up front (which is NOT the same as buying the end product - please God lets not open that fetid can of worms up again).

  • m0thr4 #50 3 years ago

    Regarding "wah wah wah, I've paid for this already, why should I have to watch adverts... wah wah wah", I don't see how this is any different from dozens of other occasions in life where you pay for a particular service and are then bombarded with adverts, such as: Sporting Events, Music Festivals, Sky/Cable TV, the Cinema, etc.

    Without those adverts, your ticket/game price would be higher. I don't know of any simpler way to explain it.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 19:07

  • m0thr4 #51 3 years ago

    @MilkyBKid1985

    "... adding a advert in there for a non relevant product will ruin any effort thats gone into making the thing in the first place and ruin immersion!"

    And this presumably also ruins all sporting events for you, yes?

  • DodgyPast #52 3 years ago

    You must be blind then.

    I suspect that most people are complaining because they bought something that was add free and now they are being forced to see ads if they want to play that game.

    Fucking with people's expectations is the surest way to piss them off.

    /in the middle of the night plasters the inside of m0thr4's car and house with immoveable adverts.

  • bad09 #53 3 years ago

    I'm with DodgyPast on this one, adding ads to an ad free game you already sold is pretty bad, sure do ads (within reason) but FROM THE START. Let people know what they are buying into. The way they have done it is underhanded and takes the piss out of consumers...oh wait this is Sony...Normal days work then...

    Anyway was toying with the idea of getting the DLC and getting back on WipEout until I heard about this adding adverts lark. Don't think I'll bother now...
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 19:31

  • xandoodle #54 3 years ago

    LMFAO @ the person attempting to recall contract law.

    /exit

  • IronCladChicken #55 3 years ago

    We need an American to patent this idea before it goes too far!

  • AOFanboi #56 3 years ago

    "Really? Are we saying that in the future, there will be no advertising at sporting events?"

    I played on the ad-supported free Anarchy Online, and I am QUITE sure that despite what the ads told me, neither Mötley Crüe not Sprite Zero were likely to be around 30,000 years into the future. It is all about context and the Fourth Wall.

  • Grayvern #57 3 years ago

    Arguing that loading screens brake immersion anyway is fatuous and facetious. Of course they do however immersion isn't just there or not there. And game designers go to great lengths to maker sure loading screens and menus fit in with game aesthetics. A Chetos add in the middle of well thought out design is more immersion breaking. I would argure more immersion breaking than a floating billboard above the track somewhere in wipeout hd.

    As to the question of revenue to support online component. That's not necessarily true many games are run not off of funded servers but are peer hosted. If there was online advertising in COD 4 and games like it, it would be hard to justify advertising based on internet costs that aren't extant.

    Also non subscription based, popular, multiplayer games tend to hold a better value at retail for a longer period.

    Finally given the probably higher profit margins of an online distributed game the idea than online advertising is needed becomes even more untenable. In short their capitalist companies they will take what they can reasonably get. And the advertisers certainly have no one but their own best interests at heart.





  • drxym #58 3 years ago

    I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I purchased Wipeout HD without any expectation of advertising in the product. None was mentioned, none was expected. To retroactively inflict this shit on paying customers is pretty scummy to say the least. I'm glad that they got rid of the worst ads that increased level load times, but let's face it nobody wants ANY adverts in the game. Not at least while the game is a purchased product. If you must retroactively force adverts onto a paying customer then you should a) give away some extra content for nothing, b) allow users to turn them off. For example if the expansion was free to anyone willing to take ads then fair enough. To charge money and force adverts without giving due notice of this fact is just a low move.

    BTW, I don't object to ads in games, assuming such advertising leads to a subsidized product, or if the viewing of the advertisement is entirely voluntary. A good example of advertising would be the Lynx / Axe spray can in Rainbow 6: Vegas. If you want you can shoot the can and watch some extra content. If you don't, then so what. A bad example of advertising would be Burger King hardcoded into Fight Night. Either way these were full priced games. Why are the adverts there at all? At the least games containing adverts should be required by industry code to prominently state so on the box, or in the download spiele.
    Edited by 2 at 04/08/09 @ 23:33

  • mr_ruberfon #59 3 years ago

    the very idea of putting ads on the loading screens, the job is to minimise loading times to increase immersion, not create a 5 second slot for coke

  • tufty #60 3 years ago

    A key factor here is bandwidth waste. A few static images are not going to break the cap, but video downloads might, especially if you have a low monthly limit. In the US, advertising that, without permission, uses the recipient's resources is probably going to be successfully challenged in courts. (Fax spamming, cell phone solicitation come to mind, both banned).

    Until bandwidth is free (as if) the video crap better come with a means for them to pay me back for my bandwidth (as if), or I'll vote with my wallet.

    As for immersion, well when you don't notice, you don't notice, but when you do, it spoils the game. And the advertising business is all about MAKING you notice.

  • kristo #61 3 years ago

    For me this is simple.

    If I pay for something, I buy it as is. I don't care how much software people babble on about how software is licensed etc. I buy it, its mine, as it is. If you change it, without asking, for your profit, that's not cool. I can think of many analogies to highlight this, but I think its obvious.

    If they had have been upfront and said, look, we need to ad support this and this, by the way. is the price of the game, then buyers could have made an informed choice about whether they want to buy it or not. Getting it forced on you is a dick move and will make you second guess buying any other games they put out.

    simple

  • monkeylite #62 3 years ago

    Have no problem with ads in paid for games, as long as it is done tastefully (and fittingly in the game with no real distractions) and does not cause performance issues.

  • Darren #63 3 years ago

    I'm all for adverts in games so long as they're not intrusive (such as on loading screens) and fit in perfectly with the theme of the game. Thus adverts for Gillette razors, Coca Cola, movies and games are perfectly suited to traditional racing games for example where they appear on billboards. However, the kind of blatant, misplaced advertising for Airwaves gum that featured in the Splinter Cell was totally in-yer-face and was very jarring as a result. That is in-game advertising of the absolute worst kind in my view.

    WipEout HD might be a racing game but it's a futuristic one and so current advertising doesn't really fit in well with it as it looks out of place IMO. The setting for the game is unfamiliar so slapping the overfamiliar in the game in the form of advertising just destroys the illusion of the future setting that the game does such a great job otherwise of maintaining.