Print

[PS3Scene]

Howard Stringer Not Sold On In-Game Ads Posted by XanTium | 31-1-2008 0:20 EST

From kotaku.com: In-game advertising seems like an easy way to turn a buck, right? Wrong. While advertising is established in magazines and television, games are a great unknown. Activision Blizzard honcho Bobby Kotick says he wouldn't go in that direction himself. "It's early days," according to Kotick. Sony bossman Howard Stringer also remains unconvinced. Says Stringer: "The [supposed] solution to everything at the moment in the digital space is ad-supported. While advertisers are happy to talk that up, there is a limit to the amount of money available... Young people don't like advertising very much..." Full Story: kotaku.com | ft.com

[slappynutz]

Finally a voice of reason. I absolutely detest advertising in games, and I'm someone who writes commercials for a living.

Guitar Hero 3 was the latest disgusting example ... having to stare at Pontiac logos on the Pontiac "stage." It's crass and obvious, and I'm really glad to hear at least a few people are putting the brakes on greed. Someone should send a memo to the guys who stuff Xbox Live with ads.

[twistedsymphony]

It all depends how it's done...

I've not played much GHIII so I can't comment on that but I know in Splinter Cell there are billboards in the multiplayer levels that get Movie posters.

Without fail the last 5 times I was playing SC online someone commented on the movie in the posters and the random chat in the game turned to a conversation about that movie...

Never once was I put off by one of those posters, on the contrary I feel they add a nice touch of realism and a nice conversation piece.

I also don't mind the ads in the dashboard that much, they're not overbearing and more than once it's been for something I'm interested in and led to a purchase.


I've seen other examples before where you basically watched a TV ad while the game was loading, and that was very much NOT ok with me.

But again I think it's a happy medium.

it also depends on the game too. the game really needs to take place in modern times to advertise a modern product, either that or the advertisers need to get with the game developers to work up something unique and fitting. I could see, perhaps a modern day product being advertised in Bioshock, but the add would have to be done appropriate to that world.

For instance instead of a "Pep Bar" maybe it was a Snickers but with classic 50's wrapping.

------------------------------
Any advertisement that improves the immersion of the game having been there is a benefit to all involved, gamers, developers, and advertisers. That's the key right there.

Like I said with GHIII, I'm not familiar with the level you're talking about but real concerts have sponcors too, I've gone to Ozzfest and see Xbox and Dodge banners hanging all over the place. But the real question I have is was it done accurately and appropriately. For instance adding Pontiac banners off to the side of the stage where you might see them at a real concert is one thing and IMO a good thing, but seeing it plastered ON the stage in front of amps, on the floor, on the bass drum, etc. would be a bad thing IMO.

[warmaster_670]

i think in game advertising can be fine, if its done right.

like was mentioned in the last post, about movie posters, crap like that works, or any spot where something reslistacly would be advertised, instead of making "generic cola!" have a pepsi ad, billboards that would have fake ads on them normally could have real ads.

[HotKnife420]

Glad this isn't a dead horse yet! j/k

 I pretty much loath in-game advertisements, with rare exception. If you're playing a game and part of the area you're in would normally have advertisements, and the environment is set to mimic our society, then an advertisement of an actual product helps add realism (ie: pop machines in and posters in SC or fast food in GTA). Considering these games mimic realism, they must also allow for you to completely ignore the ad if you choose (ie: your character can turn their head or whatever).

 If a game is more fantasy based, then I believe real advertisements have no place in it (ie: Kameo, Overlord, Blue Dragon, etc). Other games that are 50/50 is where it's trickiest. Resident Evil, for example, mimics our world, but with a twist of unrealism. Should the ads be included as the real, or the surreal?
 
 I think billboards & vending ads in realistic fiction games are most tolerable and most effective. Most any gamer will have an easier time landmarking a Verizon sign then some fictitious name that's unfamiliar to them (as many games will have a reason for you to memorize a maps layout).

 This is not without it's price, however, as developers have yet to pass the savings on to us. The BK ads in Fight Night are almost excessive (real boxing didn't shove it down my throat), yet the game still had a MSRP of $59.99 when it was released (along with the rest of EAs almost 'ad-infested' overpriced roster updates).

 I propose that developers (not that they're reading my x-s post) run ads that can almost be "unnoticed" (but still be noticed), and pass the savings on to the consumer. As a result:

• More will sell at your game's launch at a lower price
• Ads that don't interefere with gameplay or experience are more effective advertising
• Gamers who spend less money AND have a more satisfying experience are much more loyal customers

 Well, I'm off to go play Sneak King...

[twistedsymphony]

I think we're all on the same page about what defines GOOD and BAD in-game advertising.

though I'd like to add that certain products COULD find themselves advertised in fantasy based games but it would take strong joint effort on the part of the advertisers and game developers to make it work for the game, not as easy as slapping a brand name on something or filling a billboard. care would need to be taken to ensure it's not out of place.
... that probably takes more effort than most advertisers are willing to put in though.

QUOTE(HotKnife420 @ Jan 31 2008, 09:10 PM)

This is not without it's price, however, as developers have yet to pass the savings on to us. The BK ads in Fight Night are almost excessive (real boxing didn't shove it down my throat), yet the game still had a MSRP of $59.99 when it was released (along with the rest of EAs almost 'ad-infested' overpriced roster updates).

While I have no doubt that EA likes to squeeze cash from the stone there is an argument that certain game features and some games with in-game advertising wouldn't have ever seen the light of day had it not been for funding subsidized by advertising. While this probably isn't true for Fight night, consider that GHIII may not have had nearly as many songs by the original artists had they not been subsidized by the funding from in-game advertising. so while the game still fetches a hefty coin the real question is would you be willing to give up a portion of the track list/ fewer features to not have to put up with the ads that are there?

Even still we are seeing games come cheaper as a result of in-game-advertising.

Actually EA's next Battlefield game is COMPLETELY FREE and funded 100% by advertising.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17032

[mercury187]

I dont think i've ever actually gone and purchased something because I saw an ad for it, I guess this is not the norm if companies plaster their ads over the entire planet and can afford to do it. I buy something from careful research and others opinions, not because I saw an ad in a video game or on tv.