Xbox 360 Gets Anti-Drink Driving Ads Posted by XanTium | December 24 13:19 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From spong.com: [QUOTE] The Scottish Government is trying a new approach to warning youngsters against the perils of drink driving: inserting adverts into Xbox 360 games. £10,000 is being spent on the campaign to put adverts on in-game virtual billboards. The titles set to feature the ads include Need for Speed: Carbon, Need for Speed:ProStreet, Project Gotham Racing 4, NBA Live and Pro Evolution Soccer 2008. Should this trial prove successful, the Scottish government tells us, the same approach could be used for other road safety messages. Scottish Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson said, "With statistics showing that road deaths, particularly among young people, are continuing to rise, it is clear we must look at new ways of getting road safety messages across. This is exactly the kind of initiative we should be trying. [/QUOTE] Full Story: spong.com

Good

I hope it gets worse and Xbox Live gets Tampon ads and shit.

No one will listen when you tell them that ads are gay, they instead believe that the ads are necessary for Microsoft to generate money, even though PSN is free and has NO ads.

I don't have a problem with in-game ads, as long as they are done properly. Racing games are a natural choice because of bill board usage, but also with sandbox games (Crackdown, Grand Theft Auto) it adds a certain level of [slightly annoying] realism. Now if I log into Halo 3 and see my warthog replaced with a Yaris....... That is another story

These are ads in games not on live The money goes to publishers.

Johnwinger:

Are you high?

This is a positive ad, I totally would not mind someone reminding me to not drink and drive in a video game. I have no kids but if I did I would be ok with my kids getting digital billboards with some guidance.
This is not a company advertising to you so you can buy their product. You seriously need to read what the story is about before you make an out of left field comment.

Good theres to many idiots on the road, and it gets worse this time of year (with it getting dark early an all) most of the idiots are young (I'm 20, I mean the people like 17 and put turbo n shit all over there car and screath there wheels thinking there cool), I hardly watch TV so I think this is a good idea, as long as it doesn't act like ad-aware/spyware then I'm all for it. They need this stuff in England.

I don't mind ads.. as long as they're done properly. Obviously there are ads in everyday life, so we're use to it. Of course, on the other hand, we tend to turn to video games to escape reality. But meh, they don't bother me.

It's a good message though, drinking is bad! Especially doing it while driving! I'm sick and tired of hearing about all these idiots getting drunk, driving home, and killing a family of 4 and their 2 month old puppy.

As someone who has been plowed by a drunk driver twice (once on a bike lol) I support the message BUT lets not even pretend for a second that these ads will have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER. Watch there be one less drunk-driving-related-fatality on xmas day and they will consider it a great success.

There will ALWAYS be fucking idiots and they will ALWAYS be killing other people and their entire families.

if there is even one less then it is better than no Ads and someone losing a family member to a drunk driver. while they are it target the brainless idiots who use Mobile Phones whilst driving.

Good idea. Even if it causes 1 less person to drink and drive, it is a success. I just wish those who drive drunk could be struck by lightning.

I'm beginning to get annoyed with in game advertising. I realise the money goes to the publishers but :Why should I pay full price for a game when they are taking advantage of me. Subsidise the game if your advertising.Why can't we have an "opt out" setting?Whilst I agree 100% with the message but games aren't the place. I'm concentrating on gaming, and nailing the corners not reading billboards.

cheers all lol

it may not work but it doesnt hurt to try.
I have kids, and when they are old enough to play video games, they are not going to care much about what tv ads say, and most of the time what parents say.
So try to reach them in a medium they care about, video games.
I dont mind at all, ads for products can be annoying, but an ad with a purpose for good is welcome in my book.

back up there just a sec. If 'you' have a problem using a phone while driving safely, then please don't do it. However for many (myself included) it is a staged process as simple as using the radio dial. You only do what can be done safely at separate points. i.e.: Road, Menu Key, Road, Add Book, Road, Send.
If you can't handle the process of holding up a phone to your ear and having a conversation, then you probably just shouldn't be driving.

Many people converse with passengers and drive with only one hand. The phone only made it more difficult for idiots... just clarifying here.

how wrong you are.... doens tmatter how awsome of a drive you think you are, quit trying to be mr bad ass. ANY type of distraction lessens the ability for people to drive. especially cell phones.

Not 100% sure about this (to lazy to check) I believe you can "opt out" with one of the settings in the dash board, in the privacy area. I'm probably wrong though.

ba ha... not mr bad ass; I'm simply capable of doing quite normal things without distraction. Perhaps though, you shouldn't have a radio or passengers in your car if it effects you to a significant degree.

Oh, and when you finish trying to coordinate walking and chewing gum look into spell check (Firefox does this automatically).

People like you shouldn't be driving if you think you are in control holding a mobile phone.
Do you even realise how many accidents are caused via this. It is proven how it reduces concentration on the road. I would put people away for life who cause death on the roads whilst using a mobile phone.
Real time example.
10 vehicles and one HGV on the M62 junction 32 4 days ago. Guess what the 2 people in separate vehicles who have been arrested were arrested because they caused the pile up as they were using their mobile phones.
A family is without their husband/dad this Xmas because of it.
You sound just like one of those morons that thinks they drive better with a drink in them.
The penalty here is increasing to include a max of 2 years in prison in the new year
Good. I hope you get caught for it and prosecuted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nmobile120.xml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/04/26...ual_death_toll/

What you did there was just attach blind animosity for one thing that has no bearing on the other. I can tell you exactly how many accidents have been caused or nearly caused by my rare mobile phone use while driving; it's Zero. I don't live in the UK but it's uplifting to see that you'd like me to get drunk and drive there so I can be imprisoned. Channel that anger somewhere useful. You know nothing about me, but I appreciate that you have no problem lumping me in with others that you pretend to. One last inconsequential fact for you; I don't drink and drive.

Merry Christmas

I get hammered and play Forza 2 with the wireless wheel all the time.

Just try and stop me, Microsoft!

heheh

I'm sorry, but I think it's hardly fair to accuse cell phones of causing accidents. Idiots cause these accidents. If they weren't talking on their cell phone when they crashed, they'd probably be eating a pizza, or getting some road head, or whatever. Either way, a cell phone doesn't necessitate that a user lowers their attention span. I can't count how many times I've been saved by talking on my cell phone while driving (well, not saved, but stayed not lost). It's really not a difficult task, and I think people are buying into propaganda that other areas have outlawd it, much like how smoking in bars is illegal in some states now.

The biggest threat a cell phone provides to drivers is text messages. This is because their eyes (if they try to read it) will be focused on reading words on the backlit screen, as opposed to the road. Talking, on the other hand, doesn't require you to use your eyes, so they may remain focused on the road.


Anyway, getting back on topic, I think ads against drunk driving in games are much more welcome than actual product ads. I just hope they don't do what all the other developers do, and just pocket the cash instead of passing along the savings. I'd prefer to play a game with ads that advertise fake products, than pay full price for a game that's telling me where to spend the rest of my money. What's next, we gotta subscribe to our local tv channels (oh, yea, 2009 might bring that). Anyway, if I *have* to put up with ads that aren't fictitious, and no savings is passed along, then at least it'll be a positive message.

BTW, Merry Christmas, everyone

^^^^
Direct from the link.


Thanks for proving out my analogy. what's the difference between you saying that and a Drink Driver saying
" I drive home most nights of the week after a few drinks, but I haven't killed anyone yet"
Like I said it is the same sort of mentality you come to expect from drink drivers, uninsured drivers etc. The typical comments from these kind of people.

The pair of you above are both selfish when it comes to the consideration of other peoples lives.
The only time it will sink in is when you get the knock on the door, to say a loved was killed because someone never noticed them while chatting on their mobile.
You can't defend it. Laws and statistics prove it.
ON TOPIC
MS is wasting there time with safety adverts whilst ever there are morons in the world that think "This doesn't apply to me"
I do object to product advertising etc but anything safety related that saves just one life is fine by me.

The difference is an ingestible toxin and an inanimate object we have the ability to safely choose when and how to interact with. Nothing was proved other than you're choosing to quite zealously follow and believe 1 (ONE) study. Laws don't prove anything. Statistics of one study absolutely don't prove anything. And no study can be blindly generalized to every person on Earth.

Your name calling, demonization, and generalizing are what is most disturbing. However; since you are the moral authority and apparently know what's best for everyone, please tell me if I'm a selfish killer if I answer a call using a blue tooth headset, a process no more involved than adjusting the radio volume?

***Before I fired this off I thought it a good idea to check out Wikipedia. The consensus of studies on this topic goes to the lack of physical presence of the passenger that is instead conversing without the ability to perceive danger to them self or the driver, or provide a second set of eyes to watch the road during the conversation Wiki - Mobile phones and driving safety

Obviously a good point is made. It is still unscientific and unfair to apply a law to any body of people based on this. People are differently capable when given different tasks. I'm just sick of laws that punish everyone for the inability of some. Clearly officers will never be allowed to pull over people based upon blue tooth devices visible in someone's ear. Should that ever happen there are greater issues at hand. The only fitting solution is to punish on a case by case scenario and sequester cell phone records at times of collision (mentioned in wiki) for consideration of causation to an accident. It however can not be instantly damning as again it is generalizing where a singular truth does not exist

im sorry to say this but its morons like you who drink and drive and commit manslaughter your not supposed to drive while intoxicated or use cell phones and other distractions while driving AT ALL period and if you have not killed anyone yet well i hope the only life thats takin away in ur situation is yours the world doesnt need morons like you its ok to drink a certain amount of alcohol but not when your out of it and cant make good decisions and not to mention operating a machine that goes at fast speed its like your jumping out of cliff and go almost as fast ether way you have to be careful cuz MOMMY AND DADDY arent going to be responsible for you anymore soon .

seriously... This again? Read the thread again. At no point do I condone drinking and driving in any amount, nor do I drink and drive. It is others who bring it up and liken it to driving and using a cell phone. I only disagree. I'm also growing tired of the name calling in lieu of intelligent conversation. It's proving impossible to fight blind emotion with logic though so I won't bother with you further.

That's very audatious of you. He made no mention of condoning drunk driving (btw, I've NEVER heard it called "drink driving"; is that a European thing?), nor did he make reference to doing it himself.

Apparently you didn't understand what has been said, so I suppose attempting to re-explain it is futile. I'll continue to talk on my cell phone when necessary (which is entirely legal in my state, I might add). I, myself, have yet to meet someone who has hindered traffic (let alone caused a wreck) simply by using a cell phone. I *HAVE* met people who drive while intoxicated, and some who pay little attention to the road (how the hell did THEY pass the test). There's even drivers out there who have trouble with depth perception (which will impair your ability to make turns without obstructing oncoming traffic), or generally have failing vision and haven't had their license revoked. THESE pepole are much more of an imminent threat to safety than a cell phone user (keep in mind that many people drive manual transmission cars as well, which requires you to use a hand to shift gears, making the wheel primarily held by ONE hand, so needing to have both hands available at all times for an automatic transmission should be a moot point, here).

Lastly, never call someone a moron when you, yourself, can't use proper punctuation (seriously, when does that sentance end).

I see 'you' almost every day driving to work. You're the guy who is holding a phone to his ear and attempting to drive his car as well as needing both hands. You then fail to stop at junctions, ignore rights of way and cannot even indicate to other drivers your intentions because your left/right hand can only do one thing at a time - unless you're steering with your knees, in which case I wouldn't even bother replying.

This is the typical behaviour of the idiotic mobile phone driver. Regardless of what you think, your concentration will suffer because of it. Even the most accomplished driver will tell you that in order to have full control of a normal vehicle (by that I mean unmodified for a physically handicapped person), you need both hands available at all times.





If you're going to insult someone else's spelling/grammar, make sure your own house is in order. The word is affect, not effect. The fact you bragged about using Firefox is just pure irony. If you're illiterate, learn to spell. Don't rely on free spellcheckers to do the job for you.

Back OT:

Living in Scotland (where this idea was born), I can tell you that drink driving is a BIG problem. Whilst most people won't consider it, a motor vehicle is probably the biggest weapon you'll ever get to own. Drive it at 70mph sober and it's dangerous enough. Drive it at the same speed with reaction times less than 50% of what they usually are and you're looking at a fatal collision. If it were only the driver injured/killed, people wouldn't care less, but most of the time the driver escapes with a few cuts and bruises whilst killing at least 1 or 2 people.

With this in mind, I still don't think that the games console is the way to target the problem. When I'm playing PGR3 / Forza 2 etc, I'm basically a nutter. This doesn't mean I drive like it in real life. I'm old enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Likewise, any advertising posters I see will remain in the portion of my head devoted to doing wheelspins, doughnuts and drifting around hairpin bends at 50.

If the Scottish Government want to really tackle a nationwide problem they should look at stopping underage drinking. After all, aren't these the adults of 'tomorrow' who are going to be driving in a year or three?

I'd want to shoot someone like that. How hard is it to fully stop (breaking uses feet), use a turn signal (one quick flip; take the phone with you). Ignoring the right of way is a sure-fire way to cause an accident; how do you NOT see other cars around?



Glad I'm not one of those idiotic mobile phone drivers. Sure, having 100% concentration doesn't have any other equal, but that doesn't mean a cell phone will cause you to have an accident. Regardless of if you are on the phone or not, if you cause an accident, it's your own dumbass fault.



Actually, the defination of irony is to use a word in humor meaning something OTHER than it's literal intention. What you describe would be a coincidence.

i dunno if this is on the subject or not but if you haven't ever watched the mythbusters they did some test against driving under the influence as well as driving with on a cell phone and dough they failed both test they failed the test by a wider margin using the cell phone

here is a quick link
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbus...race_posit.html

I'll make reference to HotKnife420's example of the manually shifted car here. Two hands are not the norm.

You've never seen me and that is my point. I'm not a professional driver but it is possible to safely exercise use of a cell phone and drive. If the driver is conscientious and aware it is no more dangerous/selfish/evil/<insert B.S. to defend your over emotion here> than driving with passengers. Just as HotKnife420 pointed out, people are careless or inattentive of their own nature. It does not necessitate an object to continue the offending behavior.

Yup you found one misspelled word; I must be illiterate. I didn't impugn his grammar though I could have, only his spelling. Clearly I'm a careless degenerate poster here. The person I was criticizing couldn't coordinate the space key with any others or be bothered with free spell checkers.

I'd say it's right on subject. The only issue is that of the people "conducting the study". I think they have replicated some results of other studies but that doesn't prove the conclusion(s) to be correct. People are individuals with any one of life's given moments that are not duplicable. What I mean by this is that what the person the driver is speaking to said, the driver's interpretation & reaction of/to it, and the chain of thoughts that the driver is otherwise involved in can never be duplicated for testing. You'll never be able to duplicate any given set of conditions.

From Mythbusters link


They only ran their 'test' with two people. As always Mythbusters fails to utilize the scientific method. It provided an interesting extra look but by no means can it be considered conclusive, supportive or otherwise. Calls can be the length of 20 seconds that don't have any higher order of thinking occurring. Their 'tests' aren't representative of any amount of people nor do they measure what likely typifies the normal phone call for many people.

The end of all this for me is that cell phone legislation is not the answer to correcting careless accidents. Once you legislate that, start writing one for no talk radio while driving, noisy kids in the car, no eating, no makeup, no use of mirrors for anything other than checking traffic, no driving with an over burdened mind, no driving if you slept only 7h 59m when the requirement is 8 hours or better, etc.

Nobody at any point called you a name. people who answer and use mobile phones whilst driving are morons idiots, whatever you wish to refer to them as. What should people like that be called. Considerate road users looking after the welfare of others. At no point did I name call at you. I classified a generalised group of people.
If you feel you wish to include yourself in that then fine.
You also wrongly say I am classing Drink Driving on the same level as Mobile phone use in cars. What I actually said was the comments you made sound like the exact same thing Drunk Drivers trot out about their drinking. Another analogy would be the guys who run red lights and say " Well I have not hit anyone yet"
I at no point said you were a drunk driver. But you immediately got very defensive about it.

You have also now changed tack from

to


There are a lot more papers on this than just one survey as you are fully aware.


Yes and if that is caused by a mobile phone distracting you and you kill somebody, it is too late to say "Duh Sorry. It was my fault"

Stop believing that an issue that has been proven to cause accidents and deaths doesn't affect the pair of you, because you are "invincible and super human drivers". It is no slight on your driving ability to say
" Do you know what, I won't add in an extra distraction of using my mobile whilst driving"
Unfortunately until a tragedy caused by such an event happens to you, you will go on believing it doesn't apply to you.

this is certainly name calling



Comparing my thoughts to those of a moron, which while might be entirely surprising to you is just a 'slightly' subtle (to you) form of name calling.

The wishing me to drink, drive, and be imprisoned was slightly more offensive though. I'm not supposed to take offense to any of this? I'm not defensive about habits I don't employ. I'm offended at the implications you both made which in all aspects are untrue

I never changed tack as you put it, I modified the grounds a bit so that we could get closer to the baseline argument. In the process I even partially conceded but rather than take some satisfaction in that you just attack it.



Stop believing that everyone is the same. Again I'm not Superman nor anyone special, I just focus on what's more important. I tell people I'll call them back, or to hang on due to the person beside who seems to have trouble choosing a lane, or for any other myriad of things that occur.

Yes there are many other studies. One done by the Insurance Information Institute gives a state of the field. It was done in 2007 referencing much current research.


Cell Phones and Driving

Comparatively, in reference to legislation, it's more appropriate to ban passengers. But even though it would have a greater impact on accidents and deaths we won't because of the greater inconvenience. You'll find that nearly no studies bother to compare distraction from cell phones to other common distractions we welcome while driving. People are blindly attacking one distractions because... gasp, it's popular.

You are reading what you want it to say. Defensive again?
The penalty is up to 2 years here for driving with the mobile phone hooked to your ear. That is what I hope you get caught for. Read carefully I never accused you of DD. I accused you of having the same flippant attitude and responses that all law breaking motorists have. You obviously will not get caught as it is obviously not law where you are.

Nobody doubts the other distractions whilst driving.. WHY add using your mobile phone to the list.
Just how many boxes can you carry before one extra one causes danger.
From Source

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/facts/mobilephones.htm


This is getting boring now. You are coming out with the same predictable responses.(examples already given)
I should have split the topic and we could have discussed this in the dump.

Arrogance is unflattering and it destroys families, yet where are the PSA Ads telling just that? They don't exist for a reason. You all are smart enough to understand the implications of that.
Peace and happy holidays

... well I hate to bore people. I had some odd expectations there would be more feedback from others but that didn't really happen. I tend to think you were simply repeating your opinion and never really answering anything new. If I sound defensive it's because I attempt to reply to all aspects of a post. To me when that isn't done it implies concession to a point whether or not it actually is intended. Text leaves a lot to for interpretation.

Based on the immediate context of what you had said of my opinion on cellphone usage and having not had any accidents or near accidents sounding like those who drink and drive without incident, immediately followed by, "the fine" is being increased, immediately followed by: "I hope you get caught and prosecuted for it" caused me to think you were referring to drinking and driving. I just couldn't leave that unanswered.

Clearly we have differing opinions and aren't about to introduce new thoughts on the matter so this will be my last post in this thread. Catch you on another; hopefully less divided thread

This is the kind of advertising I don't mind seeing in games. Good work!