EA Called Out For Misleading Tiger Woods Ads >

	2008/12/17 8:44:01: Posted by DM
	EA has been called out by the Advertising Standards Authorit for misleading viewers of their Tiger Woods PGA Tour ads for the Nintendo Wii. The ads feature a player swinging the Wiimote, but then show Xbox360 footage of the game, thus representing graphical quality that is not quite what the Wii can do. "They explained that Wii footage would not be of broadcast quality, and the originating agency had thought it preferable to use the Xbox footage, which was closer to broadcast definition, than to 'up the resolution' of Wii footage to broadcast quality," said the ASA. >Link
	Labeled With  tiger woods pga tour 2009 ea wii xbox360 Comments [53]  | Rate this article: -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Be the first to rate this article

I was surprised that Nintendo was actually paying for the commercial to show gameplay for Call of Duty World at War. It looked AWFUL.

That being said, I'm glad EA was caught doing this.

Sounds like EA pulled a Sony right Vae.

EA should leave the misleading graphic representation to Sony

Troll, troll, troll, troll, right B1ue?

I was simply asking a question, Vae, I didn't know you were going to be so S-E-N-S-I-T-I-V-E

You presume I'm sensitive. I'm not sure why me calling you a troll is me being sensitive.

Elaborate on how EA is pulling a Sony. Maybe, if it's a good enough explanation, I'll agree or disagree. Throw a vague statement out with no support, then I'll call you a troll.

hmmm..... 480i not broadcast quality? isnt that what standard television signals are?

Reminds me of that time that Sony used an image from Project Gotham Racing to promote Gran Turismo.

I still lol @ that.

Supreme, that wasn't Sony. An ad agency did that, so no, not quite.

B1ue, did Sony use a PS3 version of a game to advertise a PS2 version? I doubt it. If so, that's news to me.

'"They explained that Wii footage would not be of broadcast quality, and the originating agency had thought it preferable to use the Xbox footage, which was closer to broadcast definition, than to 'up the resolution' of Wii footage to broadcast quality," said the ASA.'

And this isn't EA, it's an ad agency as well.

So what's the difference?

BTW, even if it is an ad agency, both Sony and EA have final approval over the advertisements. So if Sony gave the ad agency approval for the ad, shouldn't they be at fault to? Same with EA...

Why is Sony even being discussed in this article?

Because the Sony incident is very similar to this, and it's very fun to watch the SDF members scamper about in their attempt to save their beloved console's reputation.

Ah gotcha. I didn't read all the comments. I'm all caught up now. please continue....

I'm sure you are referring to me Supreme, but what I stated was a fact. Sorry you can't accept that. You see, often times, big corporations will hire ad agencies to create commercials/print ads for them as it's supposed to be their specialty. In this case, the ad agency screwed up.

It is in no way similar. EA was trying to mislead Wii owners in thinking their game would look this good when EA knew it doesn't. Your example wasn't even closely related to this, even if it were Sony.

I'm going to have to side with SDF on this. I have purposefully cut back on dissing the PS3 till somebody such as Sky or BlackTiger makes a dumbass fanboy comment either promoting Sony or defending Sony.

Way to start a flamewar B1ue.

I just wonder of the 360 got RROD after the footage was shot.

Thanks Supreme Chaotic thats the first thing that came to mind,

Vae do you need more evidence of how Sony's incident is similar to this while we are still on the subject of misrepresenting graphic.. KillZone 2 anyone? Its funny how we as people tend to forget things, ever heard of selective memory Vae?

Are you done resorting to the childish name calling?

PimpD, You never now it probably did, MS probably sent them a replacement seeing how they own up to the RROD already, it still doesn't make it right.. but what more can they do... PimpD that they are not already doing. You seem like a smart guy make a list of your suggestions give them a call let them have a piece of your mind, isn't that what your good at?

I didn't start a flamewar, I do what I always do, speak my mind I don't hold my tongue for anyone.. you or anyone don't like it they don't have to respond to my comment and if you choose to expect a response.

The Killzone 2 incident was NOTHING like this, so you are wrong. Yes, they used a pre rendered trailer 3 years ago to promote a game. Funny thing is, the ACTUAL gameplay is pretty damn close to what the trailer showed 3 years ago. Tiger Woods Wii will never look like 360 Wii. It's not even close to the same.

XDF is out in full force today. Something happened to somebody so it HAD to be Sony's fault...HAD TO BE!!!!

Its pretty good but its not close the CG, come on man don't feed me that bullshit, oh I see what you're doing, you are getting really technical to prove your point. So If I robbed a ice cream truck its not the same as robbing a bank, so its not really robbery? Because Killzone 2 is closer the CG than it was 3 years ago, but its not the same as the CG, so it not really misrepresenting the graphics? I don't know how it works in your world but In This world Vae, Robbery is till a crime and Sony still represented in their ad and for you to think otherwise just shows how much of a Sony Tool you are.. see I can call names too..

**Its pretty good but its not close to the CG,***

XDF is not out in full force, its just me and Vae going back and forth. thats all. we are not seeing eye to eye on something.. and PimpD wants to put his two cent in, he can get it too.

You obviously have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

EA used 360 footage to sell a Wii game. The Wii title will never look like the 360 title.

PS3 used a target rendered trailer to promote a game that now, an exhaustive 3 years later, looks very close (despite your XDF comment to the contrary) to the render.

Your attempts at stirring the pot succeeded, your attempts are arguing failed miserably.

@B1ue

i can see how your trying to make them sound the same, but the difference is that the Killzone 2 trailer is just that: a trailer. CGI or not, its an example of how that game is going to be represented. the Tiger Woods Wii game was misrepresented with 360 footage. EA isnt trying to make the Wii version look like the 360, and it never will. its a completed project in which a poor decision was made using the wrong footage for "broadcast quality"...

an ad company making the Wii version look better isnt the same as Guerilla trying to make Killzone 2 look like what they had planned.

ah Vae...

perhaps i should type faster next time :p

My first comment was "EA should leave the misleading graphic representation to Sony" Thats what I've been talking about this whole time ..comprehensions skills my ass.... Let me stop you in your silly attempt to spin this , If EA used 360 footage to sell a wii game isn't that misrepresenting the graphics? Even if the wii title will never look like a 360 tittle is still misrepresenting the same that even if Killzone 2 come close to the CG its not the CG ... They didn't come out right away and said its a target render, just like how EA didn't come out and say in the commercial the graphics are from the 360. Both companies were called out.

I stirred the pot you smelled what I was cooking, you came into my kitchen and if you can't stand the heat ...here you go how you like them apples?

"EA used 360 footage to sell a Wii game."

Don't forget that Sony used images from Project Gotham Racing, a Microsoft Xbox exclusive game, to market and sell Gran Turismo. Yes, it was a print ad instead of a broadcast ad, but they used someone else's product to further their own, just as the Wii version of TWPGA is using the 360 version to push market and sell.

Which raises another question... why wasn't the PS3 version used, since "the originating agency had thought it preferable" to use screens from a game that is "closer to broadcast definition"... Oh, wait, nevermind... it's Sony.

Supreme, your argument is sad as you fail to even read what I posted.

B1ue, if there were a significant (meaning: great disparity) difference in the target render and the actual gameplay, I'd be right in line with what you are saying. Fact is, KZ2 looks phenomonal, is close enough to barely be distinguishable (and in some areas, the game looks better) from the pre render. So your argument holds 0 water. The game's visuals, those with hands on who've all stated as such,have spoken.

Similarities not found.

XENOS, please I beg you don't come in with your same lame complains. about Fanboys this & That yadda yadda this site has to many faboys yadda yadda , Dm not monitoring yadda, I hate this site but I love it yadda yadda..

you can contribute or just STFU if you're going to complain.. Vae Could use a good example of how MS did something similar with one of their Exclusive game but I'm not sure if that count because that company used the in-game engine to promote the title.

No hard feelings Xenos, I just don't want disrupting my discussion with Vae.

I don't have a problem with companies promoting their products, but EA using 360 graphics and trying to sell it as Wii graphics is wrong.

Sony has rightfully taken tons of criticism for the pre rendered Killzone 2 trailer. Problem is, the critics have shut up b/c the game looks so damn good. So, when they received their criticism it was legitimate. It no longer is. If the game wasn't remotely close, then I'd say have at it, though it still isn't the same as this.

Vae, Let agree to disagree right now.. since the game will launch sometime in the next 2 month or so. (hopefully) and if it does look really fucking close the pre rendered target and i will read all the graphic reviews on it because they will mention "05 footage .. I'll put money on it. I will get a chance to check it out for myself and if you close to being right.. I will personally go out and buy a PS3 with that game and thank you for it.. how about that???

I will post a picture with a note saying Vae was right and he Shut me the fuck up

but if you're wrong. you take a picture with a note and your PS3 with a note saying Burner was right, and I've been burn by his flames-no homo.

@B1ue

I'm not Xenos. I'm not Krogan or anyone else. My posts are my own, and DM can verify via IP addresses.

@Vae

You claim that EA's mistake is nothing like Sony's, and I list how they are common. ffs, l2read not only other people's posts, but your own as well...

Supreme...what??!?! ok were did I post anything clamming that you were someone else?

I have to give you credit though.. you are a good mind reader.

Let's see, EA used 360 footage of a game to sell a Wii version = An advertising agency hired by Sony using the picture of a 360 racing game to sell a Sony racing game?

No. Sorry.

Agreed B1ue. If the game looks terrible, I'll make my avatar a picture of me holding a document saying B1ue > Vae.

what if it looks good but suffers from frame drops and its buggy as hell because they decided to take out things just to make it look good.. what then?

@B1ue... you mentioned Xenos up above, but Xenos hasnt been here at all... so i'm guess he's assuming you were referring to him.

Well, I'm sure the reviews will reflect that. I'll hold to my promise.

Within reason of course. If it's "an occasional" framerate dip, no deal. If it's widespread or if the game's graphics are heavily toned down, it's a deal.

Wow... just wow...

"Let's see, EA used 360 footage of a game to sell a Wii version = An advertising agency hired by Sony using the picture of a 360 racing game to sell a Sony racing game?"

Let's go bad and re-read the OP...

""They explained that Wii footage would not be of broadcast quality, and the originating agency had thought it preferable to use the Xbox footage, which was closer to broadcast definition, than to 'up the resolution' of Wii footage to broadcast quality," said the ASA."

Let me point out one little line, please.

"the originating agency had thought it preferable to use the Xbox footage"

You're argument is that Sony's goof was caused by an advertising agency, and EA's goof is EA's own. You obviously failed to read the part where it states that the agency HIRED by EA opted to use the 360 version over the Wii.

Again, just as Sony used an advertising agency, so did EA.

And again, just as EA has the final say regarding their advertisements and is partially accountable for this goof, so is Sony in regards to the Gran Turismo incident.

@incomiing.. oh I see.. me mentioning Xenos earlier was a preemptive strike. Before he does come in here and start crying about something.

Sorry, I honestly thought you were referring to me, since I was directly challenging VaeVictus and his lack of literacy skills.

Supreme, go read your own comments. "that time Sony used" Was EA called out or the 'originating agency?'

d*uche

Why the hell am I being mentioned in this futiel fanboy banter? How about not mentioning me when I'm not even in the discussion.

The issue behind this and KZ2 are totally different.

Sony received backlash for KZ2 because they tried to pass off a pre-rendered video as gameplay footage. Even though the actual game still doesn't look as good as the original video, most don't care since the game looks great anyways.....holy shit, I just read Victus saying it looks "better" in some ways.

Ok nevermind not going to finish my comment. No point with the fanboy goggles on.

because you always come in on good discussions bitching about something ranting on about how everybody is a fanboy so I figure I'll just ask ou nicely with no hard feelings not to this time. before you do it, and if you have no idea what I'm talking about.. .. want an example read the first sentence in the comment above this one.

umm all I did was ask why I'm being mentioned in this fanboy debate, I didn't go on about how I'm sick of fanboys, or anything else. You guys are having a dick waving contest and my name was mentioned so of course I'm going to inquire why.

No hard feelings at all, please carry on with your little war here.

SupremeChaotic is not Xenos. I can verify that. Beleive me I cheked all you IP's to make sure people werent using multiple accounts while I was moderating.

B1ueBurner: I actually put that RROD comment out there to see if the SDF would bite, or if the XDF would get pissed. You were the only one that acknowledged it.

I have to agree that the KZ2 CGI debacle is different than this Tiger Woods issue. But I do agree that whether it is a pre render of a game, a different console version, etc... Its all BS to hype a game or console. I just wish these companies would be held responsible for it.

That's what I like about Europes rules concerning advertisement Pimp. Not sure if it's only most or all of the PAL countries, but it's illegal to have any kind of false advertising. The commercial for CoD3 was banned over there because it did not accurately represent the game, but instead was a pre-rendered video n the first person view ala KZ2.

This gen has taught me many things concerning marketing in the video game world. Rarely now do I take screenshots at face value and even now with some of the techniques used, I question some trailers. Sure these things make the games look all purty and such, but I'm more interested in what I'll be playing, not what I can be watching.

"Supreme, go read your own comments. "that time Sony used" Was EA called out or the 'originating agency?'

d*uche"

blacktiger? Is that you? Seriously, you had to change your name?

Actually, Sony was called on it. They just immediately shifted blame to the advertising agency, and all you SDF members fell for it. At least EA is taking this one head on (for the most part).

Resorting to name calling... I must have really pi$$ed you off by showing your failure there.

I've always thought that all marketing had to be approved by a bourt or commity within said company paying these marketing firms.

That's how it was in my last job in management and that's how it is in my current place of employment where I work very closely with the marketing department who does hire agencies to do specific tasks.

None of this name calling is needed though, by anyone, and yes I know I'm an ass for saying this =p

oops bourt = board

Well Supreme, after you fail to READ what is being said after numerous requests, I state the obvious. You did nothing.

Truthfully, there was no reason to drag sony's name into all of this. I'll never defend them, but the company or any biased opinion about them, has little to do with EA and their troubles.

I have to say though victus, I don't see what's different between EA's and Sony's mess ups concerning advertisement. Sony was as much fault about the whole GTP thing (twice even) as EA is about the Tiger woods thing. All had to be approved before being released to the public

I started noticing something.. when SDF are losing a argument.. the other don't come in to help. But if they are wining they gang up together. In short Vae, you've been a lonewolf all day for the most part, you better call on the powers of Magdude for support.

SupremeChaotic: VaeVictus isnt BlackTiger either. Come on, dont insult the man like that. Thats worse than any name calling. Accusing him of being too stupid to ride the short yellow bus is just criminal.

Everyone: Normally I would be right in line with you guys teeing off on Sony on this topic. But I honestly think Vaevictus is just trying to establish the difference between a CGI target render demo that Sony did 3.5 years ago and a blatant ourright attempt to sell a game by advertising the HD 360 version vs the actual SD Wii version.

Yes shame on Sony for their BS hype back at E3 2005. But KZ2 though not as sexy as that video is close in most regards.

Bigger shame on EA for trying to purposefully deceive thier consumers. Besides its obvious Wii owners dont give a rats ass about graphics.

B1ueBurner: Thats because we ran off most of the rabid SDF members. Lately I have noticed a lack of balance in these message boards.

I mean Sky is pretty damn spineless. BlackTiger is pretty damn worthless. MadGunde is too sensitive. And Dudeman, well he is retired. Guys like incoming00, Vaevictus, PopRocker, and myself own both a 360 and PS3 so we arent too extreme.

I used to think 360 owners were the underdog. But Sony fucked up so bad with the PS3 that we dont even need to bash them anymore.

BTW if I dont get my 360 back before the end of the year things are going to seriously change around here...

I tried to take the even side in this debate, as I try to do with most things in life. I agree with both Pimp and Victus that there is a difference between Sony's move with KZ2 and what EA is doing now. However Pimp, I think few can agree with Victus' defense on Sony's previous marketing concerning GTP. I'm not trying to pick on the guy, and I sure as hell won't be ganging up on anyone, however to blame the agency to cover up for Sony is just.........wrong. Especially when it happened twice!

You know what they say, fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice...

Regarding the KZ2 fiasco, I'm happy that Sony received such a big backlash. They used pre-rendered video to introduce their console for 3 generations in a row and it should be seen as an insult to the consumer and their fanbase.

What's happening if you don't get your 360 back, you going to become a mod again?

I never said anything with the KZ incident. That wasn't even what I was referring to.

hxxp://www.planetxbox360.com/article_1268/Project_Gotham_Racing_3_is_the_New_Gran_Turismo

hxxp://www.planetxbox360.com/article_1920/Sony_Confuse_Project_Gotham_as_Their_Own_Again

I'm challenging you, Vae, to prove to me how these two incidents are different than EA using one console's game to push sales for another.

Can you do it, or are you going to continue believing your beloved console is perfect in every way?

Hey hey, Victus may allow his bias to effect his actions/words at times (as we all do) but he's one of the more open people I've talked to. So I don't think it's quite fair to put him in the same boat as madgunde or sky.

Sky is the perfect example of just about every sony fanboy I've ran into, so Victus isn't that bad.

Supreme, I'll give you this. The situation around ad agencies using incorrect game footage is the same.

The difference is that GT Prologue (or HD at the time) wasn't visually inferior to PGR 3. The Wii version of TW Golf is significantly worse visualy than the 360.

Also, don't accuse me of blindly defending "my beloved console." Check my Bioshock and Home threads for examples that I can recall at this moment where I'm not defending my console.

I have almost 9000 gamerpoints on XBL (have had XBL since Xbox 1 days), so I don't just game on my PS3.

The difference I'm pointing out is that people can expect GT 5/Prologue or whatever you want to call it to be at least visually equal to PGR 3. It was an idiotic mistake vs a blatant misrepresentation (by the ad agency per EA).

Change of tune all the sudden? I'd probably done the same had I realized I was fighting a losing battle, too.

I stated that it was similar to Sony, you said it wasn't. I proved it, and now you're saying it's an idiotic mistake vs. a blatant misrepresentation...

Now, if Sony had published both GT and PGR, I would agree that it was idiotic mistake. However, Sony doesn't publish PGR. They actually had to go and ACQUIRE screenshots from a game that the competition published.

I can see no reason why Sony would want to acquire those if not to use them. Therefor, I believe both situations (Sony and EA) were blatant misrepresentation.

And when I say Sony & EA, I mean the marketing agencies working on their behalf (although, again, both companies had to have reviewed and given the okay for anything to be finalized and published).

No, not a change of tune. We are arguing about different points. Instead of being a dick about it, you can be civil and accept my giving creedance to your argument.

EA's ad agency was using superior footage to convince people to buy a product that didn't look as advertised.

Sony's ad agency used photo's from a competitor (on multiple occasions) for a game that was not going to look any better.

Same misrepresentation, different agenda's.

Why would EA's agency use the 360 version to promote the Wii version? B/c of how good the 360 version looked.

Why would Sony's ad agency use PGR 3 to advertise GTHD/Prologue/5?

Ignorance.