I know that I've played EA games before, but I don't think that I've played stuff from them recently, so I don't have a personal preference on their games.

As long as they also provide some option to pay more and not have ads, I don't really see an issue. It just becomes another option to buy the game -- if you want ad-supported, can do that, and if you want to pay directly, you can do that.

If they don't have any option to pay for an ad-free experience, then it seems like it could be obnoxious for people depending upon their ad preference.

I think that all the games that I would play -- setting aside the issue of EA specifically -- I'd rather pay for an ad-free experience, but eh. Games with ads -- as well as the option to buy an ad-supported or ad-free version at different prices -- are a major thing on, say, mobile, so obviously there are people who would prefer the ad-supported route.

Back in 2022, EA patented a system that generates in-game content and ads based on a person's playstyle.

Personally, I don't really think that I want to have my activity logged and data-mined either way, though. I would pretty much always rather pay more than have my activity recorded. I care more about that than the ads. I'm fine paying more for that, but I want the opt-out. I'd also really prefer that vendors like Steam make it very clear that if a game is being subsidized by extracting data on a user, what data is being extracted. Right now, it's kind of a free-for-all, and the games aren't running in a jail, so they can do pretty much whatever. I think that just making assumptions about what they do isn't a great idea.

I remember when I saw a comment from some guy in an airport whose phone first set off an alarm and then told him that his gate had been changed and started giving him arrows to the new gate. He hadn't told Google that he was flying anywhere. This was also back when Location Services was pretty new, so people were less-familiar with it. What had happened was that (1) Google had his location, (2) while he was indoors, while GPS didn't work well Google had identified the location of other fixed devices with Bluetooth and WiFi radios emitting unique identifiers based on other people's phones reporting them and building a global database, (3) Google could infer his position from getting their signal strengths, (4) Google had been scanning his email, seen the email that the airline had sent him about a gate change, scraped the email, and determined that he'd had a gate change.

That could be a useful feature, but the point is that he had no idea that any of that was happening or that Google was making use of the data at the time. And that was many years back -- I guarantee that data-mining has gotten no less-intensive.

I remember talking to one friend who was a software engineer in the video game industry who was involved with some game where -- after recording your gameplay for a while -- they could, with pretty good accuracy, based on correlation with past users, infer with reasonable accuracy data that included one's IQ and a set of "employability" statistics. That's probably got value to an employer, but I suspect that most people aren't thinking that they're in a job interview determining their future employment status when they're playing a video game in their living room. Like, if you're working out what a video game costs, you probably aren't thinking about the potential for it to creates information asymmetries in future job situations, where a potential employer has more data about you than you do about them.