activision & iga: ingame advertisement
mod
By incorporating dynamic in-game advertising in our titles where it is appropriate, we can increase the realism of our games by presenting consumers with authentic environments in genuine settings, while also expanding a key growth opportunity for the company.
The first game it'll be implemented in is Guitar Hero: World Tour.
Somehow, I was under the impression ingame ads were to support a free game, or at least to substantially lower the price of a game. There's no indication anything of the sort os happening here, so are we getting ads in a full-price game? That's a disgrace. As if the product placement in GH wasn't blatant enough, now we get 'added realism'?
I hope this won't impact Blizzard games, although I don't imagine it will.
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/09/30/activision-and-iga-sign-for-ps3-in-game-ads/
Replies
I highly doubt they will be adding "Budwieser" and other logos to the arenas that sponser these groups.
The "added realism" excuse is obviously their way of saying "it'll make us even more money than before". It's so transparent it's just insulting.
That said, the last inkling of respect I had for them vanished when they dropped Brutal Legends (and Ghostbusters), so I can't actually dislike them any more for this move.
Not to mention it's not like they're pop-ups or anything, feel free to ignore them just like you ignore TV ads.
"take my money elsewhere" is pretty alarmist for something ignorable (btw, you pay for cable, and you get ads, so what's the big deal?) .
"it'll make us even more money than before" is a damn good thing, because publishers are more or less the only people INSANE enough to invest money in making games.
This whole notion that making money is somehow a bad thing if you're doing it really well is pretty silly. Google made $16 billion last year, and chances are you're a groupie like everyone else.
If you don't like ads in your games, stop pirating, stop demanding next gen UE3 graphics on bejewled and don't buy used games, unless their from someone you know.
'ground they lose to pirates and used game sales', eh? There aren't any (reliable) numbers on that, and it constantly gets overstated. You can't just look at how many people download something illegally and then equate that as being 'lost sales'. It doesn't work that way.
And you view in-game ads like product placement? Well don't. There's already product placement in games (and certainly in the Guitar Hero series) and advertisement (on tv) is an entirely different thing. Games and TV can't be directly compared like that. TV is a closed affair. Advertisements are to make money for the networks. In your analogy, what are the networks in games? The publishers? I wouldn't worry about their finances too much, really.
Also, your suggestion that buying used games from someone you know would make a fucking difference (as opposed to ebay etc..., not gamestop) is ridiculous. As is the assumption that anyone wants UE3 graphics from their casual games. You wouldn't happen to have any supporting numbers for that, would you?
Oh, and peterK? Publishers are the only ones 'insane' enough? Well, there's investors as well, and it's as much of a gamble as with other industries I'd imagine.
Here I was expecting an interesting discussion, like the one about second-hand sales, and I get gibberish.
There's not one ad on the Google.com homepage. Second, I have a DVR and I can and do fast forward through commercials. I also wait 20 minutes before I sit down and watch a show so I can have a 20 minute buffer for commercials. I don't have an issue with ingame ads, if they are done right but I do have an issue with ingame ads when they aren't done right and are just in game to ad more revenue streams and are blatently obvious in game and break you out of the game I play games to get away from advertising blitz that is the TV, I'd like to keep that way.
If they do it sort of like BF2142 did with road signs, I'm all for it, I'll just have to see how it's implemented. I'd really like to see the price shift towards the gamer though, paying $60+ bucks for a game is f'ing ridiculous
In the real world you can go see your favorite band playing at the Sprint Stadium sponsered by Pepsi so I'm not surprised Activision doesn't want in on some of that money. With print dying and video games overtaking tv and movies I'm sure the advertisers are lined up with buckets of cash.
If they simply brand things in games using real life brands I couldnt care less, in fact it might make things easier to create as people wouldnt have to make up fake brands or fake product designs?
The only time this would not work is if the game has a particular style and a brand label or product is forced into the game without due consideration for the style.
So its all fine if someone mugs you and they leave you a buck? They still stuck their grubby lil hand in a place it didn't belong and removed something that wasn't theirs. It hurts even if you want it not to. It still hurts the industry even if we're turning a profit in spite of it.
Saying I look at A, like I look at B, is not the same as saying A = B.
Example; "I look at celery like I look at car tires. Both are useful but taste like shit."
This does not mean I can skip buying tires and head to the grocery store instead.
As long as the ads aren't ruining the game play experience I don't mind. Like I don't mind if a can of coke faces the camera, I don't mind if a billboard in a game reads Coke instead of Choke.
Well we should. And when they're looking to make cuts or expand revenue to help cover next gen costs I'd rather them look for alternate sources of cash rather then close down a few studios.
I was trying to get the point across (in as few words as possible) that getting your used games from an alternate source is better for everyone then buying it from some place that pushes the used over the new without naming gamestop specifically. You obviously got the point because you made an exception for gamestop hah =P
Anyone notice the ads for AXE deodorant in Rainbow Six: Vegas? I think movie posters for Shoot 'Em Up were in there inside of some of the casinos as well...
So long as we don't see ads for....Desperate Housewives on Thursday nights on ABC, ads horribly out of place in the game's genre, or blatant "loading screen" ads. If the ads are well placed within the game, I see no problem.
This is pretty much how I feel about it now. Until people realize that games today can't always be a 3-year multi-billion dollar investment with hopes that it will make a 300% profit, studios still have to come up with the cash somehow. It really doesn't bother me too much these days to see realworld stuff in games, but it's when it becomes a psuedo-commercial that I will roll my eyes.
The thing that bothers me about that kind of advertising is that it's so bluntly used that you can't help but feel like you dropped $60 on a product that's going to be making even more money for the publishers the more you play it; i.e., paying to work. If it's subtle you don't even notice, but I wouldn't say it does shit to "enhance the experience," and I'm guessing the advertisers know this and offer more money for more overt usage.
The money you pay for cable goes to the cable company, the revenue from the ads go to the networks, it's not the same thing. We have to pay $60 (already a $10 increase from what it was what, four or five years ago? This is in the US anyway) and then the company gets residuals based on how much time you spend staring at some poster or whatever. If they're going to be making extra money at the expense of the gaming experience, they could at least drop the retail price - but of course, the publishers aren't interested in dropping prices.
Kashad: For the 10$ Increase over the last 4-5 years, you've gotten a MASSIVE improvement in the visuals and capabilities in the games, and a new console generation. At the same time, we've seen development costs go from 2-3 million a game to 8-12 million, then to 20+ million.
Obviously this is not for all games, but enough for it to impact our ability to keep selling games for as cheap as they are.
Whether you wanted these improvements or not really makes no difference, as market pressure FORCED publishers and developers to create products with increasing production values just to compete. Meaning People stopped buying games that did not have UE3 like gfx.
Furthermore, Where the revenues go has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're paying them. Simple fact: You're paying them regardless of who ends up with the money, and your comparison was apples to oranges.
Dekard: Another apples to oranges comparison. I said nobody rag's on Google for making lots of money. Your statement was that publishers are somehow wrong for "wanting to make more money than before", That statement doesn't really hold, as the largest publisher in our industry makes 1/4th the total revenues that Google makes.
Additionally, those revenues generally come from games and games related media, as opposed to Google which is funded almost entirely by ads.
This is basically a situation where you have a personal grudge against the companies involved, so whatever they're doing, even if it's the same thing a company you love is doing, is somehow wrong. 10 minutes ago you're saying "I'm taking my money eslewhere", but now it's "if it's done right I don;t mind" ? Come on mate.
people keep asking for better games, but they don't want to pay for them. And instead of taking even more money out of your pocket like MOST industries would, our industry has opted for more creative solutions.
Gibson, Fender, Ernie Ball, Marshall, all products that should be advertised in a Guitar Hero game. Axe Body Spray and Pontiac? No.
a) It's for increased realism! - Usually a lie and when it isn't, it still doesn't mean people like seeing ads plastered over everything in real life. They're trying to convince us we like ads, so we'll like to see more of them. Ads are awesome! So realistic! Hell, I basically watch sports for the ads, they're so cool.
b) It's cause we're losing money! - Most commonly stated by the most profitable publisher at any given time, Used to be EA, now it's Actard. We're losing money! We only make billions of dollars annually! We just can't survive in this market!
c) It won't be obtrusive! - Even if they really do intend for this to be true, it's not gonna happen. No one is going to pay for ads people won't notice. By nature, ads have to be obtrusive. They have to interrupt the experience. They have to be 'ads' and not blend into the background. No one is going to pay up otherwise.
There's a reason people don't mind Google. It's cause Google doesn't fuck with them. Google came up with this really crazy business idea called "being honest" and "not constantly lying through their teeth". They are very transparent about why they do the things they do. Game publishers just lie and treat you like an idiot. Gee, I wonder why people are so harsh on them all the time?
You used the google as your 'example' even though it was apples to oranges, I just played along.
And the 'extra' 10 dollars for the games was supposedly cost to recover the 'hardware' the console manufacturers were losing on each console IIRC
I love the games where you get a text on your NOKIA pager, then they mention to you that the gang is hanging out at the Burger King, across the street from the Jeep Shop.
They'll be sitting on his Toyota Yaris in their new Quicksilver shirts (Janine will be in her Volcom Hoodie). You CAN'T miss them.
Also, they wants to know if you can pick up a round of Starbucks.
I'm all for it if helps small developers compete, but my initial statement stands. Activision make shitloads of money from sales, already have blatant product placement ingame from big companies and now have ingame advertisement. Your tearjerking story about those poor developers aren't allowed to make any money, while Google rakes it in by the millions isn't entirely applicable either. You complain about comparing apples to oranges, while you're probably doing it much more than anyone else in this thread.
Is Google adding more advertisements to their websites to increase their already gigantic gains? No.
If they were, you'd hear just as much complaining. In fact, Google has less (and certainly less intrusive) advertisements on their websites than their direct competition.
Oh, and also? They're FREE. The ads pay for your use of the websites.
Apples and oranges.
The bits of your post that weren't annoying were quite interesting though, thank you.
edit: You wouldn't happen to have any sources for that '90% fail' bit, would you? I'd be quite interested to see them. I'd never heard that before.
This is what annoys me most about the idea of ads in games, I dont mind the investment into the industry but dont ever screw with the game experience! It may be subtle at first but Im sure they would like to get ads in there more overtly and they are probably hoping to gradually make these changes so as not to anger people.
Wikipedia on television advertisement:
"Advertisements take airtime away from programs. In the 1960s a typical hour-long American show would run for 51 minutes excluding advertisements. Today, a similar program would only be 42 minutes long; a typical 30-minute block of time now includes 22 minutes of programming with 6 minutes of national advertising and 2 minutes of local."
I would expect similar trends in gaming and that doesnt make me happy.
My sources for the roughly 90% failure rate is DFC Intelligence, feel free to purchase one of their industry reports if you like.
I found another figure from August showing 30%
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/688103/Less_Than_30_Of_Games_Make_Money.html
I'm not a graphic designer and I hate making fake advertisements. In a realistic game they look absolutely absurd. Then the more realistic they get the more (too much) time they take to make and the more they get shot down by the publisher for being "too close" to an existing product.
Real Ads in realistic settings where they really would be = great. Of course, it probably wont happen that way, but it sure would be nice. Instead we'll probably see viagra ads in Castle Smashers 2 and Buzz Cola ads in Final Fantasy 32. Even to a much lesser degree, it'd be nice if they tried at all to get the more reasonable sponsorships to make a little more sense. Such as in Guitar Hero, where the game (at least originally) that put a heavy emphasis on how cool it was to use a whammy bar exclusively used a guitar brand that manufactures NO GUITAR MODELS with whammy bars!