Gamers Like In-Game Ads, Claims Microsoft -- Video Games -- InformationWeek

Gamers enjoy in-game ads, according to Massive Inc., Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)’s in-game advertising subsidiary.

Massive commissioned media research firm Interpret to survey gamers and found that they will accept online ads, within limits. For Microsoft, not to mention Google, which bought an in-game ad company of its own last year, this is good news to have paid for, particularly given that social network ads have been something of a disappointment.

“Gamers are open to advertising if it’s done tastefully,” said Grant Johnson, chief client officer and founding partner of Interpret. He characterized gamers as similar to other online consumers in terms of their receptiveness to ads.

[From Gamers Like In-Game Ads, Claims Microsoft — Video Games — InformationWeek]

If the game is realistic, sure. as long as the ads are part of the game environment, not interruptions.

What I don't understand is why am I paying $60 for a game that has paid ads within. At the very least they should let us switch them off (replaced with fake/funny ads like Grand Theft Auto 4) or maybe give us Microsoft Points if we leave them turned on.

Of course, this is not going to happen.

MADD v. Grand Theft Auto IV

GTA 4 barely launched and the politics have already started. The problem is when good intentions clash with misinformation. I support MADD 100%, they are one of those precious few special interest groups (yeah, MADD is an interest group) that are no brainers: drunk driving kills.

The problem this time? Somebody at MADD did not bother to play the game before they put out their official stand against the game. Had anyone bothered to play the game first, they would had noticed that "drunk" mode in GTA 4 is a complete pain in the ass. I tried it last night and for the first few minutes I could not even play, the screen shook so much that I was a hair away from motion sickness. And even after the character felt like he had sobered up, within seconds of getting into the car it was already surrounded by cops. I don't know how the hell one can hit drunk mode and actually drive more than a street or three.

Gary Gygax, 'Father of D&D,' Dies at 69 | The Underwire from Wired.com

Gary Gygax, one of the co-creators of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, died Tuesday morning at his home in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, according to Stephen Chenault, CEO of Troll Lord Games.

Gygax designed the original D&D game with Dave Arneson in 1974, and went on to create the Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary(sic?) Adventure RPGs, as well as a number of board games. He also wrote several fantasy novels.

[From Gary Gygax, 'Father of D&D,' Dies at 69 | The Underwire from Wired.com]

Good night, funny guy. I have had a love-hate relationship with RPGs for close to 20 years. I started with AD&D, then moved on to Battletech, Robotech and all sorts of crazy things. I miss the semi-weekly gaming sessions, but I do not miss some of the crazy people I got stuck playing with. RPGs are not fun when you are stuck with people that can't tell what's real and what's fantasy.

Photo Credit: Photo by John Shao, used under the terms of a Creative Commons license.

Electronic Arts Offers $2 Billion for Take-Two - New York Times

Electronic Arts, the video gaming giant, made an unsolicited $2 billion bid on Sunday for rival Take-Two Interactive, publisher of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, a deal that would further a wave of consolidation in the rapidly growing industry.

Electronic Arts, which publishes hit games like the Madden N.F.L. and Need for Speed series, offered to pay $26 a share for Take-Two, a 50 percent premium over its share price of $17.36 on Friday. The offer was made publicly after a series of private offers to Take-Two were rejected by its board.

Electronic Arts approached Take Two with a $26-a-share offer on Feb. 19, up from $25 share it initially offered on Feb. 15.

[From Electronic Arts Offers $2 Billion for Take-Two - New York Times]

In other words, EA read the past few weeks' worth of coverage of the Microsoft v. Yahoo fiasco and went "uhm, I bet we can pull that one of too. Call the lawyers!"

And here we were waiting for the web 2.0 bubble to burst, yet none of us knew how. Now that we have the first two crazy moves, who is next?

Command & Conquer 3

I have had an obsession with a very special genre of video games that I like to call the "blow shit up" sub-genre. These are games that involve a certain degree of, how can I put this? Yeah, blow shit up. While tank and jet simulators are awesome, you only get to control one unit at a time. Real Time Strategy games, on the other hand, give you a commander's view and allow you to control the whole battlefield.

The earliest I can remember was probably Harpoon, which is still to date one of the hardest games I have ever played and I am happy to learn that it is still being produced.

Another gem of the genre is a trilogy of called "V is for Victory", sadly their publishers went bankrupt over a decade ago. These games were simulations of the later allied campaigns during WWII in the European theater. They were rough in terms of graphics, but the game play was engrossing.

Except for these and Mech Assault for the original Xbox, all of my favorites are in the Command & Conquer / Red Alert series. By the way, the only real difference between these two series is that the Command & Conquer universe involves the Global Defense Initiative, called GDI, against a terrorist organization called the Brotherhood of NOD.

The Red Alert universe uses alternate history to visualize a world in which Albert Einstein travels back in time and murders Hitler while he was still young. The problem was that without Hitler, the Soviets were able to invade Europe in he 1950s.

There is a second difference between the series: in the Command & Conquer universe there is a mineral called Tiberium which more or less takes a center place in the plot. It is he main mineral that is mined for resources in the game.

Why do I like those games? Easy: because it is fun as hell. The game play has barely changed since these two series started. Every couple of years we get better graphics and crazier units, plus the weapons of mass destruction get even crazier.

Now, here's the big change: this is the first time I have played this kind of game in a console instead of a Windows or Mac PC. All this means is that the game is a little bit of a pain in the ass to get used to. Once you go over that learning curve issue, and the game is basically identical to previous editions, only prettier. They also tampered with the power balance, some of the small units are just too god damn powerful.

Overall it is a good game, but I am stuck in one of the single user campaign levels. It is not the end of the world, since I prefer to play skirmish mode.

If you like the genre, and you have the $40, then it is not a bad purchase. Otherwise you can keep playing Command & Conquer Generals, which is not that different (and you can build multiple ion cannons, instead of being limited to one).