Adver-games... interesting.
polycounter lvl 19
First, go here and read this. I'm interested in what this community thinks of what First Person Plural is doing. If you haven't read the entire article and are just going to come in here with "Fuck ads in video games!" then I'd like to ask that you keep the comment to yourself. This threads about the article, and what FPP is trying to do for the inevitable ad-placement in video games. Lets not get off track.
Now then...
Immediatey, as a gamer, I was put off of FPP's plan on ad-driven game content. If not done correctly, it can completely turn me off from wanting to play the game if its done in an obnoxious manner. There's a moment in Splintercell Chaos Theory where you *have* to sit through a slide-show in order to obtain a mission objective. However, the first 10 slides is advertisement for a glass-window technology (yes, the tech, URL, and phone number are real). This sort of in-your-face ad placement is something as a gamer I would never want to see in any game, ever.
However, what FPP is doing here is gearing the ads towards the theme/atmosphere of the game so that it isn't placed in obnoxious ways. His example, of Coca-cola ads not working for games like Everquest are exactly the kind of thing I like to hear someone like him say. However, Coca-cola placement in, say, a realistic environment (think Soldier of Fortune, Max Payne, etc...) would work for me. I'm not talking about turning a corner to run in to a wall with a huge poster saying "DRINK COKE! WOOOOT! COKE!" but more Coke cans as garbage/filler, a coke machine, etc. Splintercell had certain instances where this worked with Javex and Axe product placements... and they weren't obnoxiously conceived.
FPP's idea of localized ADVERTISEMENT - not product placement - aswell, is something I believe I could tolerate. Having a local phone number rather than a 1-800 number for Joe's Pizza would be fine by me - so long as it doesn't take away from the otherall believability of the game.
I really enjoy FPP's "us-against-them" attitude when it comes to their idea of placement versus another company who's out to make quick money by putting, say, Subway ads all throughout a Counter-strike map in a manner that just doesn't make sense.
So then, thoughts?
Now then...
Immediatey, as a gamer, I was put off of FPP's plan on ad-driven game content. If not done correctly, it can completely turn me off from wanting to play the game if its done in an obnoxious manner. There's a moment in Splintercell Chaos Theory where you *have* to sit through a slide-show in order to obtain a mission objective. However, the first 10 slides is advertisement for a glass-window technology (yes, the tech, URL, and phone number are real). This sort of in-your-face ad placement is something as a gamer I would never want to see in any game, ever.
However, what FPP is doing here is gearing the ads towards the theme/atmosphere of the game so that it isn't placed in obnoxious ways. His example, of Coca-cola ads not working for games like Everquest are exactly the kind of thing I like to hear someone like him say. However, Coca-cola placement in, say, a realistic environment (think Soldier of Fortune, Max Payne, etc...) would work for me. I'm not talking about turning a corner to run in to a wall with a huge poster saying "DRINK COKE! WOOOOT! COKE!" but more Coke cans as garbage/filler, a coke machine, etc. Splintercell had certain instances where this worked with Javex and Axe product placements... and they weren't obnoxiously conceived.
FPP's idea of localized ADVERTISEMENT - not product placement - aswell, is something I believe I could tolerate. Having a local phone number rather than a 1-800 number for Joe's Pizza would be fine by me - so long as it doesn't take away from the otherall believability of the game.
I really enjoy FPP's "us-against-them" attitude when it comes to their idea of placement versus another company who's out to make quick money by putting, say, Subway ads all throughout a Counter-strike map in a manner that just doesn't make sense.
So then, thoughts?
Replies
i dont tend to be excited about them in a positive or negitive stance. i believe they are an inevitable trend and we will see them more as we go forward, especially in live games like mmo's or in online services like on xbox live. my only hope is that they are not implimented in such a way that i have to interact with them to get rid of them like the full screen popups on websites. but they probably will get to that point too. but shooting them with a rocket will feel more satisfing perhaps.
yeah, that sounds like something I will NOT be purchasing.
and when I'm shooting terrorists in a city, i'm not thinking "hmmm...coke or pepsi?".
what if the game takes place inside a volcano?
I'm already annoyed from seeing Nvidia ads before games, when I've used ATI for years.
The economics of add supported media result in a lower quality product. I'm sure I can dig up the proofs if anyone is interested... I had an entire class devoted to this stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm interested and find this claim a little premature. Being sponsored by a few companies shouldn't hinder a development teams ability to producer a great game.
[ QUOTE ]
If you pay for it, why should a company with a cheesy push network of ads be collecting money from my eyeballs when I'm not collecting money from my eyeballs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but he forgets a company who already tried the opposite (giving game away free instead) and failed... Wildtangent.
[ QUOTE ]
You have to develop the games around the technology. That's a bit of a shift.
[/ QUOTE ]
And exactly where he misses a important point that R13 brought up. Context. Since the context will have to shift to allow the penetration of whatever form of marketing happens. It will limit what the company will produce. Example: how the hell could any context be made inside a sci fi or fantasy game that wont "pull out" the player when they interact with these plugs? So the short run would be more "modern" games given the green light because the potential revenue generated from advertisers would be higher. Already Ninja's idea of the limitation this presents is rearing its ugly head.
No offense either, but there is no possible way for the type of things I am interested in to show up in games. These dont have the revenue to support large campaigns like a multi national corporation would. Gmail, ebay, any of these that "think" they are getting an idea of how to target me with cookies or other constantly fail. I could care less about any mass media consumption. Now, if they had ads for things like organic cooperatives and such.... (Which is why again it would fail miserably on people like me, and why we would still be bitchin just as loud).
Even still, you have to wonder about games like Counter-Strike. I understand that that game was basically ad supported, but through their forums.
Certainly there are a lot of interesting ways that games could fund themselves. I think taking a cut of in-game economic transactions is interesting, or like the US government, companies could just make more game money. Nothing is stopping Sony from making tons of Everquest gold and selling it on auction websites.
[edit]
I have a book that I'm looking for. Mostly about TV and movies, but most of it should apply to games.
Anyhow, as I see it, ads are another revenue stream for a game. AAA games are becoming increasingly more expensive to create, so the added revenue is a big win for a publisher, which then makes it easier for them to invest in more developers.
Whether you're against ads or not, we have to offset that production cost somehow.
As another example, I think Munch's Odyssey had Mountain Dew machines, which you had to use for health and powerups. I wonder what that got them, in terms of the revenue vs. annoyance factor...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you pay for it, why should a company with a cheesy push network of ads be collecting money from my eyeballs when I'm not collecting money from my eyeballs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but he forgets a company who already tried the opposite (giving game away free instead) and failed... Wildtangent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, FPP is looking at this from 2 different angles. Either get the game to the player for free or get it to them at a high discount and perhaps offer discounts on the players favourite interests and do this outside of the game. Referencing WildTangents failure is a little silly. The market was just an afterthought in advertisers eyes at that time - there was no research or creative execution. Because the first company failed doesn't mean all will, but I agree it may have tainted the users perception of ad placements in games.
[ QUOTE ]
"Gaming has become a mass-market entertainment industry on a par with TV, movies and music," Wolf commented. "Segments such as video game advertising, set to become a market worth close to $3 billion by 2011, will result in the further maturing of this industry. The ability to play music and media from powerful consoles and handhelds will drive overall industry growth as consumers begin to view gaming devices as one-stop-shop entertainment platforms.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's projected that by 2011 ad placement in videogames will have a revenue of 3 BILLION dollars a year, if Joe Company can capture even 1% of that its $30,000,000.00 a year in their pockets and thats something Joe Company won't ignore. Believe that.
The fact is this: Whether you like the idea of ads in videogames or not is irrelivant. Our industry is practically untapped for ad placement in that it HAS happened, but it isn't anywhere near that of TV, magazines, etc. and ad placement in videogames is going to happen, and its going to become 'the norm'. Publishers cannot ignore companies like Chrysler who have a $400,000,000.00 online interactive marketing budget. They just can't. Now don't think I'm a big supporter of ad placements, if I had my way we'd never see them in any game, ever. I'm a supporter of companies who will do it tastfully and in context of the game being played. If companies like FPP can make sure it is done in a way that doesn't take the gamer out of the experience, then I'll support that 110%. If it gets to the point where the ads are obnoxious, out of place, in your face, and overall annoying - then I fear for the future of this business.
The way hollywood does it is sorta acceptable. Actors use Dell products or something. In Transporter 2 he drives and audi and the bad guys drive like, chrysler's or something. It works that way.
That's the only way I find it acceptable, subtle. Tomb Raider does this: we have Jeep products in it, and it's subtle. More publishers should do it that way.
-R
...
Had you have read it, you've of read FPP's plan to make the game free, or at a lower price + incentive. I agree with paying for a game and getting ads being annoying but if its free or $10-30 for an $70 game then by all means, put creative ads in the game! So long as it doesn't take me, the player, out of the games setting then I'm down.
And yes, TV/magazines are bad enough with the amount of ads in them - but you and I still read the magazines and the ads don't take anything away from the articles/pictures.
As long as they can fit adverts into the game without breaking continuity or being blatant about it, we should be ok.
Stuff like actual Coca-Cola machines in Half-Life wouldn't have made me think twice about their difference from the generic made-up stuff, basically it depends on the setting and type of game if it'll work or not.
As long as it's not intrusive or blatant, it's ok by me. Basically the devs have to stop the marketing men taking control
In fact, a sci-fi or fantasy genre *could* have product placement so-long as that product is recreated in a way workable for that environment: If Coke were to want some real estate in a certain sci-fi game their Coke product would have to be redesigned to fit the sci-fi theme. An example would be to redesign the can of Coke so that it were floating, with a small glow where the cans lift is happening. In short, the product is redesigned in a sci-fiction setting.
[/ QUOTE ]
You missing the point. The player is being drawn out of the game because with a modern reference. The escapism is lost which was one of the points to begin with. The last thing a player doing a intensive D&D game wants to encounter is "The Potion of Pepsi" that ups their fighting skills momentarily. I mean really, LOTR could be a mimick of a AAA game title if we were to compare it. It did quite well without having Frodo eat some Special K in the morning before battling. All the advertisement tie in came outside the movie. With product tie ins and such.
I am am being realistic. I know ads will find their ways more into this media. The extent though should be
A: Limited.
B: Even more limited for higher cost titles. If Im buying a triple A title, then damnit, Im not paying to see placements. It makes as much sense as people who buy t-shirts with the logos of corporations on them. At least those two guys who sold themselves out so they got payed for college made more sense financially! But again, if Im paying a premium price for a AAA title. My interaction with ads should be reduced, not increased.
You want to tie in a AA title with outside revenue? Fine.. do it outside the game. Else the whole fiasco of the protests that happened with the virtual Mc'Ds in sims online will happen. Which is the last thing a advertiser wants.
Now, if Im buiyng a budget title or a MMPOG Im can see where his company can come in to make it less annoying (for most). But this whole blank statement of AAA titles misses why they are AAA titles.
Finally, your also missing this. Advertisers have say when they are paying for something. They will want as much product plugging they can AND will want their product seen in what they see as a positive light. Having discarded coke cans on the ground is not neccessarily a positive to the PR at Coke.
Short example?
Transformers the movie (which is a commercial license in itself, but bear with me). American Car companies were more than too happy to offer their cars for a transformer basis. Europeans makers have not as they feel it will make there companies car image referenced to war machines... Now, if all compromised, you would see Jazz and Bumblebee sniffing flowers while Hound and Optimus went into battle.
EDIT:
I hope what I am trying to say and what Ninja mentioned is coming across Adam. A games vision WILL be more limited with advertisment interference. There is no way around that.
Good points oxy.
I know it's inevitable heck I was playing Ghost Recon and it has very few (i only noticed one). But there were a few billboards for some Dodge truck, even though that world is very simmilar to the one i live in that advertisement stuck out like a sore thumb.
Before someone goes off on that would never work. It sure seens to have for all those free psp,xbox,ipod, etc. sites.
Both sides of the equation would be addressed.
Opting out would likely be a paid proposition, not unlike what Pandora is doing for their music service. You pay to get the ad-free version, which ends up offsetting the lost ad revenue. Or you don't pay the extra fee, but you suffer some ads.
Not sure if the website analogy is accurate, since people can simply block those ads with Firefox. In a game however, you'd need a hack, which would probably not get past PunkBuster or the like.
Honestly, unless it totally takes you out of context / gameplay just to blast you with an ad, or is an annoying version of captive audience advertising (like brome's SC experience), I don't have a gripe with a company doing that. If it allows a smaller company to spend more time / money on dev cause of alternate cash flow, cool deal then.
Advertising in games is fine.
Anyone remember spazball in QuakeWorld TF? Made the level look 10 times better. Even if coke and mac donalds didn't quite intend to advertise there
Opting out would likely be a paid proposition, not unlike what Pandora is doing for their music service. You pay to get the ad-free version
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with that. Just offer that choice.
Once a product becomes exclusively ad funded, the producer is no longer in the business of making the product, but rather making an audience. You see, they are selling access to that audience.
Companies want to tap these audiences, but the ones that do the best are the ones that capture the largest audience but spend the least money (have the lowest budget/quality game) and give the most ads.
I think it pretty obviously points to games like bejeweled being ad supported. Low cost games with a broad market. I think that it would be a lot harder to make an FPS game ad supported and run a profit.
The thing is that ad supported games will never be made for those small audiences that would be willing to pay a lot for it. With an ad supported game, they don't care how much you like the game (critical if you are charging for the product because it determines willingness to pay), all you care about is if the person likes the game enough to play it.
I think you need to look at it from the advertiser's POV. They want those eyeballs, that's what they're paying for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry follow up. I dont think your seeing the larger picture. It wont matter, as the revenue generated by the audience who would have choosen to have it ad free (and thus no prizes or gimmicks) would be super small potatoes.
More importantly. lets look at it from you the developer's viewpoint. These people who choose the ad free option. Im sure you would agree that some of them would have choosen not to buy the game otherwise if they didnt have a choice. Then, again if you did force advertisements on those that did. Whats to stop another Sims incident with the Mc'Ds protesting? Even with a EULA, it will still end up with a possible class action lawsuit from those you ban, and now with the advertisers pulling out because of the bad publicity.
It's more financially smart in the long term to have that option. With free games or subscription, charge extra to not have it. With AAA games, dont charge, but instead offer those extra benefits to those that do choose the whole ad umm "experience".
Also futuristic games can use the "blade runner" technique to advertising, which works well and shows intelligence by both the director and advertiser.
However outside that frame, advertising would seem out of place and ill advised.
i think it all depends on the game and the extent to which they do it, but one thing is certain. when this becomes a major source of revinue, you can kiss creative games goodbye. everything will be realistic. what's the incentive of a big publishing company to fund a creative game if it's not modern/realistic so that they can put adverts in it?
no more oblivion, no more fantasy at all. no more sci fi. games slowly dregrade downhill towards daytime tv's current state: selling sex and fear. it'll be realistic/political or realistic/social-image. 24 or the OC.
and then i'll start shooting people. anyway i'm sure there'll be infostructure for smaller teams to publish quality products (like steam, perhaps)
edit: i guess that was a little off topic. if you think it's too far off i'll edit..
Transformers the movie (which is a commercial license in itself, but bear with me). American Car companies were more than too happy to offer their cars for a transformer basis. Europeans makers have not as they feel it will make there companies car image referenced to war machines...
Maybe because many european car manufacturers were making war machines for WW2 and don't like being reminded of that?