You can trust VideoGamer. Our team of gaming experts spend hours testing and reviewing the latest games, to ensure you're reading the most comprehensive guide possible. Rest assured, all imagery and advice is unique and original. Check out how we test and review games here
It appears that the old trick of using pre-rendered footage in a video game ad has finally caught up with the video game industry and bit it firmly on the backside. The ASA received three complaints – two concerning Call of Duty 2 and one for Call of Duty: Big Red One. Each complaint made the case that the footage shown in the advert was of a much superior level to that found in the actual game, and the viewer had been misled by the ad.
An investigation by the ASA uncovered that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre believed that the ads were comprised entirely of in-game footage. The BACC made no attempt to check the origin of the footage, and it wasn’t until after the complaints were made that they questioned Activision, who confirmed that the footage was made solely for the ads.
According to Activision they felt it was “common practice” to use pre-rendered footage and had not been told such material was unacceptable and acted in “good faith.” The ASA determined that “the ads did not include any indication that the images shown did not reflect the quality of graphics of the games. While the scenes used communicated the themes of the game, they were not accurate representations of the graphics in the games themselves. We considered that this was misleading.“
The ASA ruled that the ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications) and that Activision must not show the ads again in their current form.
Would the complaints have been upheld had Activision clearly stated that the footage was not an indication of the in-game graphics? Possibly not, but the banning of the ads does raise new questions as to how video games should be advertised.
About the Author
