GameSpy Arcade’s ads have little to do with a game developer who hasn’t purchased in-game browser from GameSpy (or a bundled thing in the installer) though.
Perhaps a better analogy would be Microsoft advertising their new Office products everytime you ran something that used DirectX? They are providing the software that developers use to get the game going on your system, so maybe the theatre analogy is a little tighter?
Sure. To tell you the truth, the Gamespy ads don’t bother me that much. There’s an ad banner at the bottom of the screen while I’m looking for a game. I’m using the software for free. Once the game starts, however, there better damn well be no ads in there.
immersion.
Movies dont put ads in the middle of the movie.
Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future II: “All I want’s a Pepsi!”
But yeah, you’re right that they don’t put out-and-out advertisements into a film most of the time (there is the odd exception, like Minority Report which found a good contextual way to do it). Film producers came up with product placement techniques so that they could have their “ads” without (most of the time) breaking immersion. It seems to me that game studios can come up with their own solutions to the same problem, as always restricted by the realities of the medium. Product placement inside present-day (and potentially sci-fi) videogames doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. Yes, if you are going to have an Elf Warlord drinking Sprite, that would be goofy, but one hopes game makers are clever enough to realize that – just as filmmakers didn’t put a Pepsi line in the Lord of the Rings. Context is a big factor.
Summary: Just like movies, some games will be totally ruined by a bad implementation of this, others will be only marred, and in the end the least annoying thing is to just not have the ads at all.
Otherwise give the game away for free and level loading screens can have whatever ads they want (just as long as the time spent on ads to time spent in content ratio is low enough to not be too annoying).
Do developers even see one dime of the advertising revenue? If so, I would be willing to tolerate a little intrusiveness, maybe between level loads or something. If not, fuck the publisher.
Shift6: you missed the bit about DI getting revenues from this whole EA/Massive ads thing in the new BF game?
Product placement can enhance a movie. It’s more realistic for the hero to drink Coke then some unlabeled bottle and I would expect the get-away car to be a Ford/Chevy/whatever rather then some uber-generic model. Hell, in Sci-Fi movies it’s pretty fun to see a car commercial (or whatever) about Chevy’s new flying car just to see the imagination of the guys who wrote it.
In general, ads in games will horribly mar some games (see: Fight Night), not affect other games in any discernible way, and even improve some games (I expect to see real company names on the walls in a soccer game, not some made-up names.)
So far as “Every other medium that includes advertising does so as a means of subsidizing the cost, in order to lower the cost to the end consumer.” is that really true? Yeah, public TV and radio, but did movies get less expensive when product placement started? Football ticket prices get lowered? People Mag get cheaper?
Companies have and always will charge the amount of money to the consumer that they think will result in the largest net profit over time. I have no idea why this has to be repeated so many times on this board, but it does. Hollywood never sat back and said “Wow, we make more from ads now. Let’s cut the consumer a break!” No large company ever did.
Chris Woods
Well, more expensive movies don’t cost more to go see, right? Because they usually are subsidized by product placement.
Football ticket prices get lowered?
Doubtful, but going to see a live event is a little different from what we’re talking about. And you might have noticed that football games are free to watch on TV thanks to commercials.
People Mag get cheaper?
This one’s easily demonstrable; just go look at a magazine that doesn’t have ads. They exist. They’re usually independently published and cater to niche audiences. They’re almost always black and white, between fifty and sixty pages, and printed on the lowest quality paper available before you get into newsprint territory. And after cutting every conceivable corner… they cost between eight and twelve bucks an issue.
One form of product placement I’ve always liked in games is how in Counterstrike, the Engineer smokes unfiltered Lucky Strikes.
I think we should tie up all the people that would like to implement this lovely idea to a chair and make them watch TV without any programs, just the ads for a few hours. Once your intelligence has been insulted and you’ve been properly de-programmed you’ll see the light.
Side note: Since I’m sure there will be some data collection to go with those adds, I want some kick back for being a test subject.
I think this is the biggest slap in the face. EA is going to reap profit every second you play the game. And what do you get? Absolutely nothing. Zlich. You pay $50 to fuel an ad machine for EA.
Let me say that again :
They’ve gotten us to pay for the privilege of watching ads!
But to be fair on this one, you do get something. They don’t charge any fee for the stat keeping and their official servers. So they are spending resouces every month and not getting any additional revenue for providing that service (except of course that it encourages more people to buy the game). And yes, from the tone here, I am sure you could run that server in your basement for free, or whatever…
Chet
http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm
Average US movie ticket prices has increased every year.
The more expensive movies don’t make it up in product placement. They make it up in volume.
Doubtful, but going to see a live event is a little different from what we’re talking about. And you might have noticed that football games are free to watch on TV thanks to commercials.
You’re initial statement was “Every other medium that includes advertising does so as a means of subsidizing the cost, in order to lower the cost to the end consumer.” While I agree live football tickets is not remotely the same as video games I was directly giving examples to address the “every other” exaggeration.
So far as air TV/Radio you are flat right. Keep in mind, though, they do not have a way to charge the consumer. how can they stop you from watching public waves for free? Is advertizing dollars can support Fox running football, why does ESPN need to charge you? Public TV/Radio has no outlet to charge the end user. Cable/HDTV/XM Radio/HD Radio all have ways to charge the consumer and run ads. They both charge the consumer and run ads.
Look at it this way. Ads clearly support Public Television, right? So why can’t they support cable? If cable is, as you say, “lower[ing] the cost to the end consumer” why does it cost anything?
This one’s easily demonstrable; just go look at a magazine that doesn’t have ads. They exist. They’re usually independently published and cater to niche audiences. They’re almost always black and white, between fifty and sixty pages, and printed on the lowest quality paper available before you get into newsprint territory. And after cutting every conceivable corner… they cost between eight and twelve bucks an issue.
What does this demonstrate? You said Mag’s use ads to subsidize the consumers cost. They don’t. Finding an ad-less rag doesn’t demonstrate anything about that. It just means some mags don’t run ads… not that others clearly lower subscription rates because of advertising dollars.
Honestly, the companies don’t care about you passed your wallet. They never will.
Chris Woods
EA, where you pay us for the privilege of beta testing our games and viewing ads.
Except for the early to mid-90s. What the—?
Well, sporting events aren’t really a medium (4a).
What does this demonstrate? You said Mag’s use ads to subsidize the consumers cost. They don’t. Finding an ad-less rag doesn’t demonstrate anything about that. It just means some mags don’t run ads… not that others clearly lower subscription rates because of advertising dollars.
What’s hard about this? Magazines that have ads have vastly better production values and more content than magazines that don’t, and they cost one third as much. You think it’s a coincidence?
Honestly, the companies don’t care about you passed your wallet. They never will.
Hold on, did you think I was painting this as some love affair between consumers and corporations? Dude, no. Of course lowering the price is a business decision, but it comes in the form of “more people will buy this magazine if it costs less, therefore we’ll take on advertisers in order to facilitate this lower cost.” I never said they were doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, but advertising does subsidize cost.
Magazines are very much subsidized by their advertising. How do you think those free gaming mag offers worked? Most magazines offer reduced rate, or even free subscriptions to inflate their numbers for advertisers.
Chet
Many print magazines really subsist on advertising. Subscription fees are a drop in the bucket. Some magazines will try to keep subscription rates as low as possible in order to gain and keep more subscribers, since it’s your subscriber numbers that allow you to get advertising.
True, though the key word is “subsidized.” (And websites are subsidized entirely on advertising.)
Business people, across the board, view things by their ad potential. It’s not, “How can we make a magazine or website that will draw in a lot of people.” It’s, “How can we make it more attractive to advertisers?” In most cases, the answer is “have more eyeballs,” which is why you make a good product. But it’s also why network TV “fills demographic gaps” with shows that probably shouldn’t be on TV, or why magazines or websites add new sections that may not make a lot of sense.
So, are games entertainment experiences or a new way to get targeted advertisements to a demographic that’s getting harder and harder to reach through other means? To developers, they’re entertainment. To biz people, well…