Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Arts 'Scores' With Product Placement
Thanks to the San Francisco Business Times for its article discussing Electronic Arts' increasing use of product placement in its videogames. The article explains: "In EA's games, basketball players wear Adidas or Nike and run past a McDonald's banner on the court; Old Spice deodorant highlights football college players of the game; a snowboarder swooshes past Honda Motor Co.'s newest vehicle, the Element." It's also pointed out that "a six-figure deal with an advertiser defrays some of the costs of game development, which can run up to $10 million in the industry", but it's claimed: "Video-game makers said they try to take care when incorporating products in games, not wanting to overwhelm game players with product spots."
Personally, I feel violated when I see advertisements(product placements, whatever) in movies or games. I certainly wouldn't pay to see or play a game or movies with ads in it. Them saying "we don't wan to overwhelm people" is just another clue that companies would jump itno advertising on everything that's possible all the time, if they didn't know people would "revolt" if they went that far so quick. They'll move in with more advertisements here, and then a little more and a little more somewhere else, etc.
This form of advertising, I feel, only becomes a problem when it detracts from the game. Well-considered product placement may even be essential to enhancing the realism; a game set in the 1990s really ought to feature realistic brands, to add 'authenticity'. The same reasoning can be applied to movies, too.
On the other hand, if, having just defeated the Hideous Dragon Zorgaroth (for want of a better name), the player can only restore his health with Lucozade Isotonic Sports Drink(r)(tm) etc., then this is likely to be unacceptable.
Sports game sponsorship falls into the former category. To brind a stadium to life, it is generally better to use current stadium ads, or authentic sports strip, than to invent fictitious, but plausible sounding brands.
The only further problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if, within the context of an RPG, my character eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their characters, and this will tend to increase the effect.
A similar problem is if the game rewards preferentially, e.g. drinking a particular type of cola, buying a particular type of PC in game. It is not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your character happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the character's skill, an HP Handheld PC is required.
In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic especially if the game is attempting to model 'modern life' (e.g. The Sims). Then the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana, rather than the reaility and causality we experience.
Few studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).
If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
"Video-game makers said they try to take care when incorporating products in games, not wanting to overwhelm game players with product spots."
/. reader would love to repeatedly play a level that featured an MS billboard, provided the game had destructible terrain...
Yeah, right. Remember this when you're playing Quake 4, and a rocket goes flying past your head with an ad for Coke on the side of it.
On the other hand, I'm sure any
I actually love the idea of ads in games for so many reasons. The biggest one is that it makes the game developer more income from the game, meaning that they can both charge me less, and make more exciting games. It's a win win. I think that I'll only keep on enjoying this if they use advertisements in the current way. Having banners for McDonals in the background of a basketball game actually makes the game feel more real. When I watch a real basketball game there are ads, why should the computer game not have them? I think that certain websites could learn from this. When you push advertisements right into the middle of a page or have a bunch of popups, the user doesn't even look at them. They just get annoyed and leave your site (sometimes). If you do it unobtrusively, then users can still enjoy your site, and you can make a profit. If advertisements are "integrated" into the website and not forced into it, they can even add to the experience.
I think I can safely say that this does not bother me at all. In fact, this is the kind of advertising I like to see--especially in sports games (or for all I care, pockmarked billboards on the side of a bombed-out building in some FPS) sort of adds to the realism.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Just as Hollywood has converged on the "two hours of explosions with product placements" formula for guaranteed success - I fear that the videogame industry is going the exact same way.
Just as the independent films are typically the only original movies today, the only truly original games of tomorrow won't be made by the large corporations. They won't be willing to take a risk that a completely new game idea / concept will sell enough to recoup the huge production budget.
Think about it. The formula for a movie today seems to be something along the lines of:
Gratuitous slow-motion action shots, The Shootout scene, The Car Chase scene, the hero is a martial arts expert that can automatically use any weapon that it is possible to build, lovable sidekick provides comic timing (but may be killed, further motivating the plot) on the way to save the hero's love interest from whoever is this week's bad guy who happens to have a British accent. The movie will suck, but viewers don't know any different go see it anyway. All they have to do is get the biggest opening weekend ever and it doesn't matter how bad word of mouth is, they've already made their money back double.
And big-budget games will soon all be the following:
Third-person action adventures where you shoot, can also drive cars between missions, and get FMV scenes every 5 minutes to further the plot (involving a kidnapped gratuitous "love interest"), while enduring your lovable sidekick's comic antics. The gameplay will suck, but reviewers will say they love it or their advertising revenue plummets - and consumers will still buy them anyway because they don't know any better and they left it 8 days instead of 7 and now the store's return policy expired.
Here in Aus, Brand new games retail at AU$90. If ingame advertising will make it cheaper for me then I'm all for it.
It allows the companies who are willing to pay a chance to get some brand awareness with groups they wouldn't ordinarily conect with and it's not intrusive.
This has been done in films many times (Apple in Mission Impossible) - If it's done well it actually adds to the realisim of the film. It maintains the suspension of disbelief if the hero uses an Apple powerbook (which a lot of people have herad of) rather than a SupaDupaPuter 1000 (made up name). Of course nobodys going to want to sponsor the bad guy...
Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see this approach replace the advert breaks in TV shows
As a whole, Enter the Matrix failed the advertising test. By the end, I was indescribably sick of seeing banners for Intel and Nvidia.
But there was one thing that, though cheesy, remains in my memory: the Powerade machines. You could kick a machine, and a can of Powerade would come out. It wouldn't do anything, but it was a funny little touch, and a distraction from the ass-beatings elsewhere in the game.
I guess the moral of the story is that if you can make advertising interactive within a game, it has a greater impact.
Glog!
It's in the game.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
In game adverts don't really bother me when it's more subtle. When I played Wipeout XL, there were ads for Red Bull all over the tracks. I had never heard of the product at the time and when I first saw it in a store, I picked up a can to see what it was. Darkened Skye is way over the top, where there is a a subplot to pick up as many Skittles candies as you can. They just beat you over the head with it. Games with advertisements still seem to cost the same $50 in stores, and I doubt the added income for the developer/distributor will be passed down to the consumer.
Really, I think the product placement is only appropriate where we are to expect it or have already been desensitized to it.
Examples where I think it's aceptable: A racing game with sponsor banners and products; Some sports with similar banners, etc...
Example where it feels completely out of place:
SSX 3: Seeing that damn Honda Element all over the place just really pisses me off. The game has this over-top kind of exagerrated super-saturated reality to it, and then BOOM, there's a real-world car sitting there in the middle of a course. Nice. What happens a year from now when I'm still playing this game and there's the damn Element still there. What if they stop making the Element? ugh
I don't see what the big deal is.
I reckon that if it helps a game get made, it's a good thing, and frankly, I am not stupid enough to be swayed by advertising. Yes, adverts on TV piss me off, but seeing them in the background in a position where you'd see them in real life is well, what I expect.
It just adds realism.
I'm not going to go buy a McDonalds if I see an advert for it, because I hate them. I'm not going to go buy a Honda if I see an ad for one, 'cause I can't afford it, and don't want to.
The only time advertising might work, is if it reminded me of something I do like. And, well, I don't remember that ever happening.
Product placement in videogames, modifying the game to suit the advertisement. EA is mentioned, no less.
like GTA
my all time favorite ad placement in GTA is:
"If it aint Wong, it aint white".
hilarious and politically incorrect on so many levels.
Their games are set in the present. Their content would naturally contain ads. At basketball/football/baseball/etc games, ad placement is all over the place. Its only natural to have them in the game. You can't do this with games like KOTOR, they don't have Intel Chips a (really) Long time ago, in a galaxy far away.
so what's the big deal? They have an advantage because of their game setting.
I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
Hopefully if/when SimCity 5 is developed there will be actual models for retailers.. This IMHO would add a huge dimension of realism for that game. Probably one of the few games were commercial placement would actually be really appropriate.
The Blackadder special episode was based on the blackadder series and used numerous direct references and original footage from the Blackadder series.
Id say the Visa adverts are closer to the 'Johnny English' character.
The Visa references were probably just 'continuation comedy' because the viewer would now connect Rowan Atkinson with Visa.
The episode was produced by BBC who could get in extremely hot water if they took payment for advertising in a public production.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The good: Anything that defrays the cost of game development will have one or more of the following effects: Cheaper games. Better games. More [financially viable] games.
The bad: I really like fictional brands. That shit is great. Also this makes it harder for genres which aren't as advertising-friendly (fantasy, for instance) to compete.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
What I'm not for is the fact that this means jack squat for consumers. If EA gets an extra $10 million from Nike, what do I get? The same game, by a rushed developer, with a bunch of extra advertisement... for the same $50 USD.
Companies like EA isn't going to lower the cost of their games because of this. They're not going to give the dev team an extra month to work out the bugs and balance it out some more. No, they're going to pocket the money from Nike, take my money, and pocket that too.
I remembered watching a TV program a couple of years back when they interviewed an EA representative. They mentioned that EA used to have to PAY the companies to include their brand names in the games (namely NHL 2000 and earlier). Now the tides have turned due to increase in video game exposure. As for anything else, it's all about perception -- which company has a better advantage and higher bargaining power.
In EVE Online, there are billboards that run ads for fictitious stuff that is part of the game world:
Quafe - beverage and powerful company akin to PepsiCo in the US, only more so
Pax Amarria - a book that it is politically correct to like (written by an Amarr Emperor).
There are other ads, sometimes done in holographic lights on board some stations.
These ads are done right, they are unobtrusive, they don't materially affect gameplay, and add to the realism. The only thing which detracts from the realism, in my opinion, is there aren't enough different ones, which points out that the game universe is much smaller than the real one.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
There is a flaw in what you are saying. Unless what you are selling is a sequel, you need something very original to grab the reviewer's attention. Without that original widget to get reviewers all hyped about, like Rise of Nation's territory system or XIII's daring art direction, the reviewers will blow past your game onto something else. The game we just shipped was a solidly made game that all of the reviewers agreed was a blast to play, but it had nothing original about it. Except in specific circles who considered the game a sequel, it was impossible to build any hype, and the title has already been discounted at many retailers.
Other games, like Warcraft 3 and Doom 3 get lots of press ahead of time because they are sequels to popular games. Half-life 2 needs to be the 2nd coming of your deity of choice if it is going to live up to the hype. Others, like the original Half-Life, Ion Storm's "other game" Deus Ex, and the original Jax and Dexter relied upon simply being high-quality games that were a heck of a lot of fun to play, and received little pre-launch hype but lots of post-release praise. Admittedly, Half-Life brought storytelling to an otherwise hollow experience, Deus Ex gave players more freedom than any FPS before it, and Jax and Dexter... Well... Nevermind about Jax and Dexter.
In this paradigm, then, the road to a successful title is either A: be a sequel, B: do something in an established genre but do it weirdly enough to draw hype, C: make a great game and hope it gets a following.
None of these sound so bad.
The ______ Agenda
In EA's games, basketball players wear Adidas or Nike and run past a McDonald's banner on the court; Old Spice deodorant highlights football college players of the game;
So their target audience is fat sweaty men in tear away pants?
Would you mind sharing the name of the game you just shipped? Your comment about reviews intrigued me, so I wanted to check it out myself.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Regarding product placement in games, some things that I believe should be done:
1.Advertising should only appear in places it normally appears. For example, if you are moving through a subway or train station, put billboards in the places one normally finds them. Or put billboards alongside the road in a driving game like Cruisn USA. Or like how the Need For Speed games feature real cars like porsche, ferrari etc.
2.If you are simulating a real-world present-day situation (such as a sports stadium & sports teams or racetrack & race teams), use the same ads as the real world situation. One example of this being done wrong is the EA game V8 Challenge. In this game, there is a simulation of the Mount Panorama racetrack at Bathurst (in australia). One part of this racetrack has a bridge of some kind that crosses over the track. On the real racetrack there is (and was when V8 Challenge was created) an advertisment for Dunlop tyres on this bridge. But in V8 Challenge, the buffoons at EA put Bridgestone logos on the bridge instead and ruined things.
Same with sports teams and etc. For example, just like how Ferrari is sponsered by various companies (tic-tac, shell, vodafone etc) in real life, the Ferraris in should have the correct sponsors logos in the right place. (although in a few cases there can be issues e.g. where cigarette ads are still legal for some motorsports but where they arent legal in the games)
3.Dont have player interation with the products being advertised. For example, a game where you have to buy food from a KFC or whatever to move through the game is bad. In cases where real-world items are used for gameplay, dont just have one brand (e.g. if you are going to have real-world cars, have several makes)
This only applies in games where there is a defined "player". (e.g. a RPG or a game like "the sims"). Having e.g. a KFC store or a Shell gas station pop up in a Sim City city for example would be fine since its not being directly used by the player.
4.Dont put ads in the wrong setting. For example, having an ad for Nike in a medieval themed game would be totally stupid since nike shoes never existed back then. "future earth" games not based on any particular universe can have product placement and get away with it as long as it looks like it would still be used in the future (in the future, people still enjoy a refreshing ice cold Coca-Cola or whatever it is)
and 5.Dont put the ads or products into the dialog or storyline. For example, dont have a character in a cutscene say "Lets go get a Coke" or whatever.