EE - UK's largest carrier - may start to block ads in its network

http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2...vel-ad-blocking-for-its-27-million-customers/
EE, the UK's largest mobile carrier, is carrying out a "strategic review" on whether it should block ads before they appear on customers' smartphones.

Speaking to The Telegraph, EE's CEO Olaf Swantee said that "this is not about ad blocking, but about starting an important debate around customer choice, controls and the level of ads customers receive." His primary concern is "intrusive or crass" adverts that he says can "drive people crazy."​

Abuses from ad networks and ad companies in the mobile space has been a problem for a long time, not least in mobile gaming. Those abuses are now making carriers seriously think about system-level blocking of them - as I believe Apple did in IOS.

 

This is bad for people who depends on ads, but unfortunately it's the advertising industry that brings things like this on themselves. And in this case, probably the developers who put an insane and unacceptable amount of ads in their games. But I only really see unacceptable levels of ads in amateur games.

I used to be really against ad blockers for moral reasons. If someone is giving me something for free and all I have to do in exchange is ignore an ad, then I should be perfectly willing to do that. It still annoys me when people complain about ads on Hulu, because you barely have enough time to get up and pee during a Hulu commercial break, much less time to go microwave yourself some food. Compare that to cable where one break is as long as all of Hulu's put together. And then factor in the fact that cable is $80/month and Hulu is $8. But I digress.

Even I, moral objections and all, put ad blocker on all of my desktop browsers. I have satellite internet, so if I go over 10gb in a month, I have to pay $10 for each additional GB. There is a free time between 12-5am, so it isn't really too big of a deal. But when half the sites you go to play video ads, often with sound that makes it annoying to try and read the article at the same time, and even sometimes ads that just keep playing, I had to block them. Otherwise I'd be paying out the wazoo just for browsing the web. Now, if the sites were to disclose that they were going to suck my bandwidth dry, I could just ignore those sites. I don't have a problem not using something if I don't agree to the terms. But they don't do that. They don't say, "hey, watch this ad and you can see your content," they just inline it. Satellite ISPs even directly recommend ad blockers for that reason.

Life is much better with ad blocker. Not just to save bandwidth costs but because so many ads are just obnoxious, what with all the talking and the flashing and the general annoyances. Google to me does it right. I know people complain about privacy issues, but I'd rather have ads that I'm interested in than ads that I'm not interested in so as long as Google doesn't sell my porn viewing preferences to my grandmother or something, I don't have a problem with it. Google can't come kick in my door and drag me away because I search for something innocent reasons that may appear to be nefarious reasons like a government can.

So I think the industry will need to move to the type of non-intrusive ads that Google uses, or to other forms of sponsored content rather than the very in your face, and often annoyingly so, methods that they use now. That, or they could just leave the banner ads and put policies in place to stop the annoyances. Several sites out there do mention that they go out of their way to make sure that ads running on their network are not audio-visual monstrosities.

 

What's funny is other networks are trialing the exact opposite, basically inserting ads into your web responses at the network/isp level.

 

Wish every carrier would block every single ad in existence. That way it crashes the market, then people actually have to make things worth paying for. Which means a lot of hard work and bigger payoff. Heck selling 10 copies of your game in a month at 99 cents would be more of a payoff for the majority of devs getting ad funding.

Granted some ad games are good, even though I don't play them, I just know some (from the big established companies) are good. Just not my cup of tea to play them.

But these simple little games that get made in a week and throw ads on it, yeah no get the *beep* off the store.
Everyone who knows me on these forums knows my harsh standing on Ad based games, so I'm not gonna go all into why I feel this way lol.

 

I would like an ad blocker for my TV network. Anyone got one

Its all part of the game that is getting money out of people without them objecting too much. Its not really going to change much.

 

ads suck

i have an idea for an app that fights back at ads... where it really hurts, too bad i dont have the resources myself to make it happen, and most people probably wouldnt be interested in it, itd be a little intrusive, but i think its golden idea none-the-less

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have no love for ad companies. But one way to avoid ads in apps is to simply pay for them.

 

This.

Its interesting to see what the net effect of this type of universal blocking program would be. Assuming the technology works, I'm picking a sequence of events like this:

• Ads get blocked everywhere
• Developer revenue from ads plummet
• Developers shift from ads to paid aps or even more aggressive IAPs to keep revenues up
• The net result is everyone pays more for their aps or fewer aps are developed

 

This topic sorta ties into the topic about game development (and broader creative industry) not being respected. Since 2009, whenever I told someone that I make mobile apps for a living, they practically brag that they don't pay for apps. Those same people who don't want to pay for apps don't want ads so their usage can be monetized, and they don't want IAP so their usage can be subsidized. Whether they realize it or not, they are essentially saying that creative individuals have no right to earn a living with their skills. It doesn't get any more devalued than a value of $0.

 

Is it, really? It'll be a change, that's for sure, but a change that reduces saturation and mandates an increase in quality could result in net benefit - less ads (great for consumer) which are more effective (great for advertiser) and probably more valuable (great for the developer). I guess it's not so good for ad aggregation services, as they'll be all cut out of the picture (though maybe they can change their models accordingly).

Right now most ads really are just noise. They detract from an experience and individually aren't of much value, and that won't change while the primary method of competition is to just cram as many more into apps, web sites and content as is possible.

 

Yeah, for some of them. Especially in the short term while the transition to whatever comes next happens. And the need for such heavy handed tactics as blocking ads is going to make it that much harder for the industry to earn back the trust that its taken a dump all over for the past few years. I fully believe that an uphill battle is awaiting the ad industry. Especially the ones who aren't currently being proactive about being better in tune with what consumers will and won't tolerate. Of course, as I mentioned in another thread, society can't move forward with a few people getting caught in the crossfire.

I guess we'll end up with a sort of white list that ad networks who prove their willingness to not annoy people are allowed to get on to get past the blocks. The problem is that it isn't always the networks that are responsible, it's the developers that cram too many ads in the app in the first place. I don't know what is going to happen, but it is a step in the right direction and unlike many other economic disruptions, for the most part the people hurt in this will be the ones that made it necessary in the first place. So, it's a little harder to feel sorry for them.

 

These are all great outcomes, right?

Ads get blocked everywhere: For most gamers this would be a great thing. And for most developers they really wouldn't be missing out on anything.

Developer revenue from ads plummet: In my opinion this is also a great thing. Now devs can use better monetization strategies. Things that may require a bit of skill and thought (oh is this perhaps a barrier to entry?)

Developers shift to other monetization strategies: Excellent! Maybe like "try before you buy" or yeah IAP.

Net result everyone pays more for their apps or fewer apps are developed: Double win! And actually fewer apps being developed would help to increase the perceived value of the ones that are developed. So maybe a triple win.

 

Depends on your outlook. Personally it doesn't bother me either way. The landscape is simply changing.

 

The modern monetization strategy is that people *want* to watch ads, this only affects developers living in 2013.

 

Wont happen.

Microtransactions are on the rise which is the path that many developers are taking, hell its even gone to triple A games (such as Call of Duty, Halo, etc).

No longer is it a one time fee

 

I did mention aggressive IAPs as one option. It doesn't really matter when you pay.

Without advertisers footing some of the development bill users will have to pay more. Alternatively the market shrinks and there are less aps.

 

In general I'm not even sure this change is warranted or is much more then a marketing ploy. As it is users are free to simply delete aps that are too aggressive in advertising. That's the point of a free market.

 

Well this isnt entirely true, the mobile market is a great example. People dont make games using ads, rather than bigger games that are paid because they cant be bothered, they do it because, no matter how good the game is, paid mobile games hardly ever survive. Think about all the big mobile games that have been floating around over the last year or so. Now think of all the paid ones that were just as big.

 

Yeah they don't survive because of the f2p crap. Whos gonna buy a game when there are already free games. The day f2p dies out, Market will go one of three ways. 1 - people will keep doing as usual, playing mobile games, 2- never buy one, or three move to a different platform(E.G. - xbox) ... Thoughs are the 3 possible outcomes.

 

You played some of Rovio's latest games? In "bad piggies" they actually stop you from continuing to new levels until you watch a video ad. At first I thought this must be rare, every 10 or 20 levels or something... but no, it happens ALL of the time, your playing a level or two, bam, interstitial ad, you play another single level, BAM another interstitial... it has gotten out of control. I understand that these companies know they can make more money this way, but they are already established, already a huge name, and yet still very money hungry when they know they have their userbase by the balls. Makes me kind of sick!

Now that is not to mention that they also randomly play interstitial ads between restarts, and levels and such, but those you can skip. If you skip the ones preventing you starting another level, it won't let you continue. Sigh...

 

You make it sound like these ads are annoying?

We get so many different viewpoints in here. Makes it interesting. Several posts above yours there is a claim that "people want to watch ads". Unless I read it wrong. But yeah the only reason I could ever see a gamer wanting to watch an ad is if it is directly tied to some benefit for them within the game they are playing.

And even in that case they would be incentivized ads. Meaning the gamer is exchanging their time watching the ad for some benefit such as coins or whatever they can use in that game. For advertisers this is generally the worst kind of ad view. Because the person is watching out of no interest at all in the content of the ad and instead only to gain some other benefit entirely unrelated to the ad.

But we'll see how it goes. And compared to being forced to watch ads for no benefit I do see it as a big improvement.

 

No, I don't really play mobile games since I've tried to start transitioning to desktop. I stand corrected.

I don't know exactly what that post meant. But they may have been talking about the rise of opt-in advertising. Several games will allow you to choose to watch a video in order to get some small amount of in game credit.

 

Yeah that is what I was thinking of. The incentivized ads. If they make it so all are by opt-in only that could be a very good thing. Although just making the dang things very small-scale free demos and full paid versions still makes more sense to me. But then I don't play mobile games. Maybe it is a different mindset.

 

It is. Most people just flat out don't pay for mobile games. Almost the entire industry exists because it is subsidized. Whether that is by the ad companies, or by the few "whales" who purchase IAP. I believe it can survive in the absence of those things, but it will be a much smaller shell of what it currently is. The people who want the ads and IAP to go away don't seem to understand that doing so will mean they will have to pay for the games then. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

True. You put out well-reasoned posts. And you're doing it for a living. I generally just come away from these things thinking it's always the same ole stuff. A lot of people trying to maximize the money made from gamers and a lot of gamers trying to get something for nothing.

I could understand if the games were all $20 or more but geesh not willing to spend even $1 or so? May be harsh but my view is fine they don't deserve to play it.

It's not like these games are a necessity. Not like they are the only fun things to do in life.

If a person can't or won't pay a dollar then they shouldn't pay or play. Problem solved. Most of the time all of this effort to make everything available to everybody regardless of any effort or investment on their part simply because "they want it" just makes no sense to me.

 

That's the most insulting thing about it. When you tell someone you make mobile apps for a living and they, almost proudly, proclaim that they don't pay for apps you always end up thinking to yourself, "Gee, nice $5 cup of burnt coffee you have there." I don't really understand that priorities. I mean, if those are their priorities, good on them. I'm not judging that. But they wouldn't expect that $5 cup of coffee for free, so why expect longer lasting enjoyment to be free? If your spending priority is coffee over games, you should have no games. Or at least have more coffee than games. Seems reasonable to me.

 

Do I get in trouble now if I mention that I never pay for mobile aps? Why should I pay for something that people are willing to give away for free?

Just delete the game. As a consumer you should vote with your play time. Either the game is worth paying for and you pay for it. Or the game is worth watching ads for and you watch ads. Or the game is not worth it and you delete it.

 

Only if you also complain about the existence of ads or IAP in those mobile apps, which judging by the second half of your post isn't the case.

 

Sometimes I wonder if it doesn't have a lot to do with what mobile devs consider 'a success'. Is 3 guys working on a mobile game, selling 100k digital files for $3 a success? In my book it would be, because that's nearly a million dollars for three guys. But sometimes it sounds as if it's a failure if those 3 devs don't match Angry Birds.

It's as if not catching the entirety or the majority of the mobile phone user base is a failure. What is 100k of a couple of billion people? Half of one thousandth? That doesn't even register in the game aggregators lists. But it's 900 thousand dollars, for three guys that may have worked for half a year on a mobile game.

Ads are, in a way, as it would appear to me – and I admit that I may be wrong – an attempt to short circuit this. So what if 99.9 per cent of the mobile phone user base doesn't by a particular game? A tenth of a percent of the 2 billion mobile user base is 20 million people. A thousandth of the same is 2 million people. If each pay $3, that's 6 million dollars.

But would one thousandth of the mobile user base as a market be considered a success? Listening to some people, I doubt that. Yet for a small team, that's serious money. But since one thousandth, or even one ten thousandth, of the market is too small so they employ often very intrusive ads. I made the mistake of installing an app where the add took over my phone! Never again.

 

Well thats what Im saying, hence why mobile games, from good or bad developers, need to be f2p with IAP's and ads to really sustain a profit

 

I agree with this completely. If someone doesn't want to pay for games then certainly yes just play the free games. The thing is people have been doing that all of the time anyway. There have been completely free games or "free demo versions of paid games" available for decades.

A lot of my games library used to be free demos. Many times I paid to get the full version. Many times I did not. I think it was a very fair system. But these days I think maybe what started all of this change in mindset is the AAAs saying putting out demos ends up cutting their sales in half.

I don't doubt that it does. That tells me that most of the people who buy the games don't really like them enough to play them enough to have paid for them beyond that demo experience. That little taste was all they needed. And maybe the demos were too big of a taste.

One of these days soonish I will throw out a game for sale but am just going to use the old (IMO) tried and proven model of a free demo version (no ads) to provide just a taste of the game. And then a paid version. Honestly, if the gamers don't want to buy the game and either are happy with just playing the mini demo or hate the demo then I don't want them to buy the game. That'd be stupid. I only want people to buy the game who want to buy the game because they want more than the demo offers.

 

Not if f2p is banned. F2p is crap even with iap. Nobody or their momma should give something away for free and make 40 cents a month if their lucky, and people wonder why they haven't hit success. You cen only afford to give free stuff out once your established, because at that point its not gonna deteemine if can can feed your family. Just a bunch of pis*ed off employees. I mean hey you might get lucky in a billion to 1 chance and hit it big. But if not if u do mind 0 -40cents a month keep skiing what your doing. I think free should be 100% free, not a marketing scam. Hey heres free game. But if you want to beat it at average completion speed pay me 40 dollars. Thats a total rip off. But that's just my opinion nonetheless.

 

Sorry phone typos lol

 

I think when it comes to F2P, there is a bit of a generational gap. I've never felt compelled to give money to a F2P game. When I was a kid, we played games because we enjoyed playing the game. I don't think that is the case for young people today. I think they think it is, but I don't see the evidence. I'll give an example. When I was a kid, I loved the game Dragon Warrior. In that game, when you start off you are going to spend a crazy amount of time just killing slimes so you can get your level up enough to go where the wyverns are. Anyone who enjoyed repeatedly killing slimes enjoyed the game. Killing slimes was grinding, but the grind IS the game. Anyone who didn't want to grind decided that Dragon Warrior wasn't the game for them and played something else. Now, people would complain that they have to pay money not to kill slimes. Essentially, today, people pay money to not play the game and then complain about it. That doesn't make sense in my head. If I don't want to play the game, I just don't play it. I'm not going to pay someone so I don't have to play the game.

Which goes back to what I said about people nowadays not playing games for the fun of it. The only reason to pay money to skip actually playing the game is if you are only playing for the outcome. If you only care about winning. I always hear people say that companies force you to pay if you want to win, but I see no evidence of that either. Do young people today have any idea how many games are in my collection that I never beat because I wasn't good enough? When you get higher up in the game, it gets hard. That has always been the case. My generation used to enjoy that. Today's generation seems to be more about instant gratification.

I've played several freemium games and very rarely given money to any of them. If I don't like the grind, I do what 8 year old me would have done, I conclude that I don't like the game and find something else to play.

 

Now O2, another large UK carrier, has come out to say they may follow EE in blocking ads on their network.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2015/11/o2-is-also-at-network-level-ad-blocking/
Emboldened by EE's pronouncement that it was looking at network-level ad blocking, fellow carrier O2—which has around 24 million mobile customers—has come out of the closet to say that it's toying with mobile ad blocking as well.

In an interview with Business Insider, O2's Robert Franks said that, "We are absolutely looking at [network-level ad blocking] technology ... We are absolutely having conversations which are well-advanced in terms of what that tehcnology would do in in our network and other layers and how we would position this with customers."

O2's motivation seems to be similar to EE's: they're worried about how invasive, intrusive, or otherwise crappy mobile ads might create a bad experience for their customers. "We are holding ourselves to the highest standards with our own advertising. We are looking at these technologies to see if they can help our customers with some of the bad practices and disruptive experiences that are happening," Franks said.​

 

@HemiMG I think you're definitely onto something. That is one of the things I have never understood about this new model. I agree completely it seems like essentially people are paying to not actually play the game. Just seems a bit crazy really. It's like these "players" are not actually engaging with the core game play mechanics at all and instead the entire game experience is sorta like buying cheat codes to bypass the actual play. Which like you said.... why even do it at all? What is the point? lol

 

Very good. It's not carriers' fault or web users' that ads usually take half the screen (if you're lucky, that is...) and start SCREAMING at user's face. It's entirely fault of ad networks and site owners who allow for such ads. Now you're dealing with consequences. I'm on a horse.

 

I think it's a little more complex than that. Chances are that no one link in the chain likes how things are, but no one link in the chain feels like they have the power to make significant changes alone.

You blame website creators, for instance, but what's the alternative to them? Users are really good at ignoring ads, which means they get less revenue from them. So they make the ads bigger to try and draw some income. They have a choice between their income stream getting ignored or their income stream annoying their users... that's a lose-lose choice. (There's a third way to lose, too, which is to not have a site.)

You blame the ad networks, but the environment gives them their own set of lose-lose choices. Make ads less obtrusive? They'll get less clicks, which annoys their clients. Make them more obtrusive? That annoys developers, because it's annoying their users.

Customers are in a situation pretty much exactly like @BoredMormon described. Even people willing to pay for stuff aren't going to pay for it if it's already free. But the lack of income drives certain behaviours/designs/business models that lead to products we're not as interested in anyway. I guess this one isn't a "lose-lose" because there's actually not a lot of a choice here for individuals short of the few "premium" games that crop up or playing games on different platforms.

(Clearly I'm not a normal mobile gamer, but the last two mobile games I played a lot of were Monument Valley and Republique, both of which I paid a "premium" but still quite low price for. In both cases I got great entertainment for the less-than-$5 I paid.)

 

@GarBenjamin, @HemiMG You haven't played a lot of the 'pay to win' have you?

Technically speaking many of these games can be grinded. But this is only a technicality. In real terms the grind rate is often so slow that if requires you to spend thousands of hours grinding. The fact that you can grind these games is a bone thrown to convince people they are still free. In practical terms completing the game requires buying IAPs

There are also versions of this model where there are competitive leader boards. The leader boards require you to have a high level of stuff to compete. This stuff can only be obtained through IAPs. This PvP pay to win can be especially nasty.

Finally there are the 'puzzle' type games with difficulties perfectly tuned so you only finish a level one in ten times. Unless you buy the extra life that is conveniently offered at regular intervals.

 

Is it entirely their fault? I remember the days when browsers were filled with obnoxious advertisements. They may still exist to some degree but the majority of them have stopped making their way into my experience. If companies want to make an advertisement obnoxious then the solution is to start distributing ways to stop them.

Did you know Adblock Plus supports mobile devices too?

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/blocking-ads-in-android/

 

This seems unfair to those who rely on ad revenue. Not defending those who spam interstitial ads every 5 seconds but these games normally get negative reviews anyways. There are many games who used ads sensibly and achieved great success.

 

I kind of suspected that was the case. Still though this seems to support the same thing we are saying. Well, not so much of a difference in the gamer (other than why are they even playing this crap?). But definitely supports the desire to get around the actual core play mechanics. However, it is a different spin because it is actually because the games suck as games.

Their designs are flawed... as games. Designs are great as money generators.

I think that is what you are saying?

 

Exactly. The free to play system is typically designed around what players will give out the most money for, not what makes the most engaging games.

There are some notable exceptions. Crossy Road and Shooty Skies have made massive strides in a monetization model that does not force players to monetise. The games are pretty engaging without paying a cent. Yet the same emotional pressure exists. "You just died so close to your high score, why not watch an ad to get an extra life?"

 

It is still strange why people are even playing the games. I guess they must get hooked on the game early on at some point before the grinding / clicking / whatever gets tedious?

 

I feel like they start off simply wanting something to pass the time and/or their friends play them too. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some psychological thing behind continuing to play them though. Kinda like how I've gotten hooked on MMOs at various points before something else caught my attention for a sufficient period of time.

 

This is common. The games typically gift you with free stuff for the first couple of days.

 

I know and I'm using it. Not my fault they had to make such obnoxious/clickstealing ads. And I'm glad some country gonna block them completely, even if it is not my country. Maybe this will incur some self-regulation efforts on adnets' part.

 

Odds are ad blockers already account for a big part of the hit in ad revenue in mobile and web games anyway. Not everybody knows about them though. As time passes and more and more people use ad blockers the ad rev model will become increasingly worthless.

Like @Ryiah mentioned ads used to fill the Internet. People got tired of seeing them. They kind of ruined the Internet experience. That is what I found surprising about ads becoming such a major revenue source in mobile games. It's like people just never learn.

I run an ad blocker and don't see ads on websites I visit. At one time I made money from showing adsense ads on my own websites. Years ago. I got so sick of seeing ads I removed them from my sites and gave up the money switching to affiliate marketing instead.

Ads are annoying. They fill up space. Distract from the core content. Waste bandwidth. And can even provide a way for viruses to be delivered.

An occasonal ad is one thing but people get so desperate to make money they generally just add more and more ads.

Advertisers need a way to get their message out. This kind of wholesale spamming is not the way to do it IMO.

 

I agree, but I also think that those who do ad-supported games well might be less effected by this anyway. With luck and planning maybe they could even be positively impacted by this, because the added challenge and/or cost could knock a lot of the noise out of the market.

Lets not forget that computers aren't smart enough to examine a piece of content and decide if it's an add. This isn't going to remove the textures on Red Bull cans (or whatever they were) in the next Splinter Cell game because it cognitively recognises it's an advert. It's going to do something like block known ad servers at the network level.

With that in mind, the impact will be most effective at culling the most common, lowest barrier and (I would guess based on the low barrier) worst used styles of adverts, which are probably also the lowest value. If you directly put ads in your game (like the drinks in Splinter Cell), or have your own server for them, or otherwise make your ads indistinguishable from game content as far as the network is concerned then I can't see how they can stop you. And, if noise is reduced, it might even make ads more valuable in those cases.

 

Personally I think carriers should be as neutral as possible . Blocking ads seems like the first step on a possibly slippery slope. If my carrier is allowed to determine that I don't want to watch ads, whats next? Will they decide that youtube has too many ads and start slowing it down or redirecting me to their own ad free video site?

Opt in would be okay by me, or better ways to block ads from a device (or maybe some combination where the device can inform the network what type of content it shouldn't bother downloading).