Unless the ads are useful, cool, entertaining, or turnoffable.

In fact Google ads might be better than the server jpeg adverts asking gamers to support that server. If the game server had google adverts then it might pay for itself.

Already I can't watch many things, like bbc.co.uk newsclips, because I blocked ad firms and it won't play if it can't feed an ad first, soon I won't be able to do anything but make bitter comments on sites, you were warned :o


I agree basically with Pascal. If a game is going to be making the publisher revenue from advertising, why should the consumer pay for it? Or at the very least, it should be radically subsidized...if it would have gone to market at $50 sans ads, it should be $10 with ads. Or maybe offer both options to the consumer.

Personally, I will not pay money for a game that is going to present me with advertising. If I want to watch ads, I'll watch TV. I'm not going to pay someone for the privelege of having them shove their logos up my ass.

NO !

Can you picture that in 74 size, please ?

NO ADS IN GAMES !

I will eventually amend that to read NO ADS IN GAMES THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR !

If a game is covered in ad slime, then I fail to see why I should pay a cent for it.

If I pay for it, the it had damn better be the game and just the game.
And without the bugs, please.

@google ads are good : I have no issue with your opinion of Google ads - as long as they stay in Google. Google-powered or not, I DON'T WANT ANY IN MY GAMES !!

Is that clear enough ?

i don't have any problem with Google ads. They're actually useful. for example if you're viewing a mail in gmail, whether it's contents are about quantum mechanics or latest games, you'll only see ads related to that. besides the ads are just small text ads and not huge banners like you get in yahoo mail and other ad services.