What is the story with those dominion ads??

[Tim Brooks]

This is in reponse to Jurri's post:

I should imagine that a company in the entertainment industry would have some concern for the values and image it chooses to project.

Sure we do. Howvever, that does not mean that our values are your values. We would have a hard time doing anything if we tried to please everyone. In fact, it is impossible. The negative response to these ads pale in comparison to those who have written us about being 'sacriligous', 'warmongers', and just all around bad citizens of the planet earth for publishing wargames and fantasy products that truly offend the far right christians.

This does not speak well of your morality to those who care about the issue.

We are telling you that some of your customers feel estranged by the choices the company makes.

We know. Hardly a day goes by when someone is not offended by something we do. So should we close the business, because people everyday are offended by the choices we make as a company?

There being people who do not care of this issue or even favour exploitative marketing does not make this complaint any less significant for those who do care, it only makes the complaint matter less in the eyes of a company that cares more of the bottom-line than good corporate citizenship.

All I can say is that it must be hard for you living in the world we do with that attitude.

Frivolously dismissing actual customer feedback is, again, your prerogative, even if many businesses would value and weigh heavily such grassroots signals that might reflect significant issues for large customer segments.

Well another thing that we will have to disagree on. I don't see where Scott or Annette did anything frivolous in this thread. The only mistake they made was jumping in this thread in the first place. And attacking them really doesn't solve anything. The person you should be attacking is me. I am the only person in this company that is responsible for what we advertise and how we choose to advertise it.

...you may well decide to scoff upon the concerns raised here

So, let me get this straight. I don't agree with your position, so I am scoffing at it? That's a leap don't you think?

Or perhaps you have numerous customers for whom 19th century attitudes to objectification of women are a selling point?

I wonder if the women portrayed in the ads, who are professional models and were payed for their time, would agree with that statement. We should have asked! Funny, I never even considered asking such a question.

can’t speak for others here, but for myself I can say that I object rather strongly, even hostilely, to objectification of women in service of crass consumerism.

You must have a hard time buying almost anything. Cars, beer, cleaning products, vacuum cleaners - I just saw a commercial last night for a vacuum cleaner that showed a woman in a white silk dress vacuuming the floor. Now, I have seen my wife, my mother, my friends wives and mothers, my girlfriends, and various other relatives vacuum many floors. And know what, in 50 years I have never seen one woman vacuum the floor in a white silk dress cut three inches above the knee with a neckline so plunging that it was hard to imagine just how everything was staying in place with that extreme back and forth movement. I wish I could rememeber the manufacturer of the product, because I am sure that that is one you would want to steer clear of.

Objectification of women? Don't the women have to decide for themselves if they are being obgjectificated? I mean, the vacuum lady was smiling, and appeared quite happy. I wonder if that was because she was probably making $200 an hour to vacuum some floor that probably wasn't that dirty to begin with. I know my wife doesn't smile like that when she vacuums our floor. My wife probably feels more obgjectificated. Of course, my wife doesn't make $200 an hour to vacuum our floor.

The gaming hobby has a dark history in this regard and while these advertisements might be appropriate (if transparent) for furniture, lipstick or women’s shoes, in service of a fantasy adventure game they are pure exploitation.

Well we were going to blood sacrifice some virgins for the ads, but we couldn't find any. (Thanks vfb)

Neither the visual style nor content matter here bears even passing relation to the advertised product;

Exactly. Pssst, I let you in on a little secret... that's the point.

Similar advertisement campaigns have been judged in Finnish courts as demeaning and patently offensive, unfit for public consumption.

Wow! Really?

I have no desire to associate myself with this travesty of modern marketing, and while others are of course entitled to their own values, I do not like these values displayed in places I frequent or make purchases in.

Okay. I am sure there are those here that will miss you but we understand your position now.

Are you trying to intimate that you are not sorry for your actions, but regret that some are offended? You have no claim to an apology for the latter without regretting the former, you know – I for one am not inclined to forgive you when you do not even confess that there is room for offence in what you have done here.

What a load of crap. We had a customer write in that it has been two weeks and he has still not recieved his game. Obviously it was lost in the mail. Now I personally am sorry that he has had problems and we as a company are sorry he had trouble; we know how frustrating that can be. So we can't apologize to the customer unless we regret sending him the game in the first place? Well, we did apologize and I am pretty darn sure we meant it. And we sent him another game, so obviously we didn't regret it.

The first step to conciliation is seeking common ground; false humility does not become anyone.

Neither does false indignation.

Do you get the point of that statement?

If you don't like the ads, don't buy our products and don't frequent our site. Pretty simple really.

[Edratman2]

I agree with the posting by Tim Brooks.

I stayed out of this because I could not figure out why so many people were indignant about ads that are similar to the cover photgraphs I see on magazines in the supermarket checkout line.

A key principle of the game is capturing slaves and sacrificing them. I have never seen threads complaining about this. I'm fairly sure this concept should be more abhorrent to many more people than slightly provocative pictures of attractive women. And I can see more exposed female flesh in 2 minutes at the local mall than these inoffensive pictures depict.

I'm also sure that if you limit your purchases to goods that do not use attractive people in their ads you are probably limited to buying 10 penny nails, Draino and white socks.

[Sombre]

Seems to me there's quite a few people who won't be buying any shrapnel products in the future, based on the adverts and the two threads they've spawned.

I don't want to say that of myself, because I wasn't about to buy any of your products beyond the Dominions series, so it would be a bit hollow. However as a user of these forums I am thoroughly unimpressed by Shrapnel's response in this thread. Half your responses seem to be mocking or purposely misreading objections raised. Case in point, the idea that the amount paid to the models or their willingness to do the job has anything to do with whether the adverts objectify women. Either you're trying to make a seriously flawed and childish argument or you're mocking a concerned customer.

I expect if I do get a response it will essentially be 'I don't care what you think' mixed with a charge of 'false indignation' and an invitation to leave your forums. I do not wish to leave because I really like the community here. My opinion of Shrapnel has done a total 180 though.

[Foodstamp]

Dominions allows you to kill people by the thousands including sacrificing virgins. This game allows you to practice magic, and become a god. There is nothing wholesome about this game in the traditional sense. Yet, clothed women put in a little banner with the words "I want my Dominions" offends you all?

I am absolutely amazed that people find violence and murder more acceptable than sexuality. It reminds me of where Hillary Clinton freaked out over GTA. She wasn't angry that you could run around town killing old ladies with a shotgun. She wasn't disgusted by the fact that the primary character is a drug dealer, car thief etc. What offended her was the possibility you could download a mod a view a sexual scene in the game.

Most people will have sex at least once in their lives I hope. While I would hope no one ever has to kill anyone, sacrifice a virgin, or attempt to ascend to god hood through murder of their neighbors. Yet, in our societies, sexuality is more taboo than these other things. Makes no sense at all, period.

[Sombre]

Foodstamp said:
Dominions allows you to kill people by the thousands including sacrificing virgins. This game allows you to practice magic, and become a god. There is nothing wholesome about this game in the traditional sense. Yet, clothed women put in a little banner with the words "I want my Dominions" offends you all?

I am absolutely amazed that people find violence and murder more acceptable than sexuality. It reminds me of where Hillary Clinton freaked out over GTA. She wasn't angry that you could run around town killing old ladies with a shotgun. She wasn't disgusted by the fact that the primary character is a drug dealer, car thief etc. What offended her was the possibility you could download a mod a view a sexual scene in the game.

Most people will have sex at least once in their lives I hope. While I would hope no one ever has to kill anyone, sacrifice a virgin, or attempt to ascend to god hood through murder of their neighbors. Yet, in our societies, sexuality is more taboo than these other things. Makes no sense at all, period.

So your argument is that complaining about these adverts and playing Dominions 3 means we find violence and murder more acceptable than sexuality? That's ridiculous.

You might have a point if Dominions was using violence, sex and blood sacrifice in a crude and exploitative way to sell copies to idiots. If it was like Postal or a porn game or something,.. but it isn't. It's essentially a fantasy strategy game. It isn't /about/ gratuitous violence. You might have an argument that GTA is, though I would definitely take issue with that too.

These adverts are clear cut. They have nothing to do with dominions or any of its themes. They are just lame sexploitation. And yeah, that's common enough in the industry and beyond. Is that reason to accept it now it's been brought to Dominions 3?

[Endoperez]

I have to say I have only just now begun to accept that some people have really, truly been offended by these ads. I thought the complaints were extrapolated and out of proportion, but I think people really meant them - and have really meant them for over four weeks.


I have trouble finding anything offensive about the ads, so if my earlier comments belittled your opinions and you were offended, I'd like to apologize. I don't understand what this is all about, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one. I think I might have to read both threads and see if I can find what this is all about, by reading everything as if it was written without a hint of humour or sarcasm.

[Tim Brooks]

You might have a point if Dominions was using violence, sex and blood sacrifice in a crude and exploitative way to sell copies to idiots.

It isn't /about/ gratuitous violence.

Come on Sombre. The last three Dominions ads before the "I want my Dominions 3 campaign" showed two factions in battle, a lightening bolt burning up a row of warriors, and a spell being cast to burn up a group of warriors.

Here's some interesting numbers (I am showing this to you guys because I know alot of you are interested in how things work in this crazy business):

First a little background - these are industry wide numbers. An average banner ad campaign will recieve between .10 and .20 percent clickthrus. That is 1/10 of one percent to 2/10 of 1 percent. A campaign is considered successful if it receves .30-.40 percent clickthrus and the top campaings come in at around .50 percent clickthrus.

Now, the last four Dominions 3 banners from January thru March 2008 received an average clickthru rate of .15% with the top banner receiving .20%.

The "I want my Dominions 3" campaign started April 1. We have run 4 banners so far. The average clickthru rate for these banners is .65%!!! The top performing banner's clickthru rate is 1.19%!!!

Since the start of the "I want my Dominions 3" campaign Dominions 3 pageviews are up 53% over the last three months combined. That works out to a 354% increase if taken on a monthly (average) basis. Sales of Dominions 3 are up 20% over last month - and last month Dominions 3 was a monthly special at $7.00 off (I think that was the sale amount).

Now, you can be offended by the ads, that is your right. And you can think less of Shrapnel Games, that is also your right. But the bottom line is that Shrapnel Games is in business to sell games There are many reasons why a developer will choose, or not choose, us to publish their game. But the bottom line is sales, period. If we lose a developer because we offend their sensibilities, well that is too bad, but for a publisher it is much worse if we lose a developer becuase we can't meet or exceed their expectations on sales.

[Sombre]

Come on Sombre. The last three Dominions ads before the "I want my Dominions 3 campaign" showed two factions in battle, a lightening bolt burning up a row of warriors, and a spell being cast to burn up a group of warriors.

Yeah, they showed actual gameplay. They gave an idea of what dom3 is about. Spells, armies, formations of troops fighting huge gods and monsters. If those ads were about using gratuitous violence to sell the product they would have used completely unrelated violent material, just as the current ads use completely unrelated pictures of women.

I can't believe you're seriously comparing the two sets of ads or suggesting the former ones were all about violence. If you had to describe dominions in a few key words, would violent or bloody be amongst them? It would be fair for plenty of games which actually DO use gratuitous violence to sell, but not dom3.

On a related note: Have you actually played dominions 3? I'm starting to doubt it.

[Tim Brooks]

Ahh, gratuitous violence. I was hung up on the violence word. I see now.

If you had to describe dominions in a few key words, would violent or bloody be amongst them?

Well yea, since that was what we were advertising. You know it is very hard to advertise the strategy element of a game. Unless we used a couple of people deep in thought, but then they would be "unrelated pictures" of people which is also taboo. Or are you suggesting that beautiful women may not want their Dominions 3?

Okay, I am just having a go at you. Sorry.

The last I'll say here is what I tell all the people who write us each month saying we are heretics and doing the devils work by publishing fantasy and role playing games:

Opinions vary, please feel free not to support us.

[Wrana]

To Foodstamp:

Yet, in our societies, sexuality is more taboo than these other things. Makes no sense at all, period.

Well, the society with taboo on sexuality was the one which conquered most of the Earth's surface and got into space.
You can call it amazing (which is the best ), illogical or even perverted, but you shouldn't doubt its efficacy. And it's all about efficacy, right? (At least so positivist science tells us).
And so you probably shouldn't wonder that people who are fascinated by this conquest are less-than fond of overt demonstrations of sexuality... However, this isn't the case here at all!
To All:

but because it is insulting. The ad is basically saying "We know our target audience

This is the key. (I don't want to place long quote here - the thread is long enough already! ) For people who feel insulted by such ads it's just a sign - of not exploitation of women, but of their own exploitation which is waved before their noses. So the Foodstamp's analogy is quite off the mark: while there are pornographic computer games, there aren't those in which player is just an object of outside manipulation (sorry, forgot the TV! But we are speaking of the computer gamers here - and they by definition prefer to be somewhat active...). And just as everybody had had sex, everybody also is quite familiar with marketologists who "know what you want" MUCH better than yourself.
And this is why I both find ads humorous - as they just bring the fact that these "knowing" ones actually just don't care the freck into light - and the humor somewhat sick - as the fact that ones who don't care are considered knowledgable isn't actually THAT funny.
Dixi.
Hope that it's the last post in this thread.