$100,000,000.00
polycounter lvl 18
I don't mean to restart the recently closed thread about that guy's article, but I just saw this on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/09/01/electronicarts.madden.ap/index.html
$100 million. That's Dr. Evil money, earned in one week, selling essentially the same game they sold at this time last year. I'm not posting this in judgment one way or the other, but instead to show why the industry, like any other media market, trends the way it does. If I'm running a business and I can choose either to gamble my capital in an unproven attempt to reinvent the wheel or I can simply publish a 'sequel' that's the revenue equivalent of being handed Bill Gates' ATM card, the choice is clear.
The issue of innovation and creativity is fought far down in the trenches of development; for the guys at the top of mountain, the ones who are accountable to the stockholders, no innovation is ever going to pull their attention away from a check with nine figures on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/09/01/electronicarts.madden.ap/index.html
$100 million. That's Dr. Evil money, earned in one week, selling essentially the same game they sold at this time last year. I'm not posting this in judgment one way or the other, but instead to show why the industry, like any other media market, trends the way it does. If I'm running a business and I can choose either to gamble my capital in an unproven attempt to reinvent the wheel or I can simply publish a 'sequel' that's the revenue equivalent of being handed Bill Gates' ATM card, the choice is clear.
The issue of innovation and creativity is fought far down in the trenches of development; for the guys at the top of mountain, the ones who are accountable to the stockholders, no innovation is ever going to pull their attention away from a check with nine figures on it.
Replies
and take a risk every now and then on something new and ground breaking
[/ QUOTE ]
Spore. Spore. Spore.
Personally I'm going to boycott EA from here on out for one sole reason: They're forcing us to look at in-game ads in BF2142, using MY bandwidth to deliver them, and the fcking game still costs $50. Unfortunately I can see this becoming a trend. So fck EA for being the first for implementing this (yah there's been ads in games before, but never like this... this really feels like the first truly mature stage of in-game advertising)
Oh, with those that do offer experimentation... actually attempting to market these experiments versus funding development and claiming new game play/ideas don't work while in reality it failed from the lack of exposure.
I would think its more like paying for premium cable scooby. You know, like showtime. If they were cheaper then that type of marketing could be more justified, but if your paying full price..
Back OnTopic
"The ads will initially appear in Battlefield 2142, apparently because gamers from the future have traveled back in time to tell EA that combat is only realistic when it features billboards promoting Visa."
And, though I havent seen it confirmed, I've heard rumors that the C4 is being nerfed in relation to the billboards so you won't be able to blow them up or hide them under blast marks.
and here's a link to the bf2 preorder page on gamestop... for $49.99
[ QUOTE ]
And, though I havent seen it confirmed, I've heard rumors that the C4 is being nerfed in relation to the billboards so you won't be able to blow them up or hide them under blast marks.
[/ QUOTE ]
If true this is exactly what some of us have been trying to say about in game advertisements. They <u>will</u> effect the possibilities of game play as not not upset the marketer. You cant have one without the other. Its not a simple manner of "its only a ad, it doesnt effect anything".
I just didnt expect to see this happening so early.
I don't personally mind product placement as long as it's peripheral to the game and doesn't interrupt it. Don't make me watch a commercial, that pisses me off. But if Visa wants to waste their advertising dollars via in-game ads, that's fine. I just feel bad for the poor dumb bastard who's gonna lose his job, once his corporate masters notice that pushing credit cards on video gamers through such blunt force marketing methods is not going to work. Did we learn nothing from Wayne's World (asphinctersayswhat?)
They increased the pricetag tho. 60 here - wasn't it sold 19 or 29USD orginally?
In which case, I agree.
Boo football.
Hooray creative, and actually fun games.
gamedesign truf #1 design your game around $$BENJAMINS$$ not cool innovative ideas nobody else but you cares about
I assuming your saying football games suck.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not saying that.
In-game ads are just another way to earn extra cash that they are not going to put back into the company and certainly are not going to put into making better games*.
EA's only concern is to make money, and then make more money. That is what the company is founded on. Making good games only becomes a factor if the games are bad enough to hurt sales. So far brand names have proven to be far more effective than quality experiences, so they are under no pressure to make creative and fun games and probably will never be any time in the future.
*some small developers might make good use of this stream of revenue, but not EA or any other large company.
Overblown budget + bad game = loss?
Ferg... just wanted to comment on the ads in games. It's not that bad a thing, unless it causes you to be pulled out of the game experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats what Ferg is saying. It is pulling you out of the expreience. To expand upon what Verm is saying. Lets take soda pop cans and snack machines. No longer will player be able to damage them, they will also be immaculate. No cans on the ground, or dirt. The rest of the game may be cyberpunk, but these will stick out like a sore thumb. Then posters or billboards, again can't have that gritty realism. Mc'Ds in your GTA? Can't go in and hold it up, that would present a bad image to the company.
Not to mention what this might do to the mod scene (now this is a extreme hypothetical example). Teams will be required to have this advertisement in their levels. Why? Because the factor or lost revenue. The developer will see lost income as they cant serve up as much advertising because players will be expanding into non developer based creations.
I'll accept that advertising will play a role in SOME titles. But it can't for all. It also I think will require the developer to first have their developement goals and play style concrete. Then shop for a advertising role that will fit the developers style. Too often we have seen the opposite in hollywood, where the advertiser dictates the direction of the movie versus the movie dictating the direction of advertising.
(On a side note, I know it's not the same everywhere, but almost all EA employees I've talked to in Vancouver have actually said that they were treated very well.)