Slashdot Mirror
Videogames And Car Marketing Intersect
Thanks to the Detroit News for their article discussing how videogames have become a great selling tool for automobiles. The piece discusses the willingness of car manufacturers to see their models used in games, with a few exceptions: "Sony Computer Entertainment America spokesman Ryan Bowling says Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini demanded exorbitant licensing fees - but that's why they aren't in Gran Turismo." It also mentions the thorny issue of car damage, with Alex St. John of WildTangent, developer of a Chrysler 'advergaming' title, noting: "In the past, advertisers could never imagine a commercial where you dent a car... But half the fun of a game is driving recklessly." A Chrysler spokesperson explains this change of heart for their new game, saying "...corporate attorneys determined that gaming is enough of a 'fantasy' to make it permissible to damage vehicles."
I understand the premise behind namebrand familiarity... but I have a hard time believing anyone is going to spend thousands of dollars on a car simply because they got to wreck it in a video game like this article suggests.
Sure, maybe just continually seeing one of these cars on the screen will make you turn your head once or twice and chuckle when it passes on the street, but to drop 10, 20, 30 grand on a car because you played it in a video game? Come on, this guy is going to drop 50k on a car just because it's on PS2?
It's not like these are even niche companies looking for a market. Who hasn't heard of Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Nissan? I'm not saying marketing doesn't work... sure, get the name out there as much as possible--but how can you say someone is going to buy a car just because they got to play it in a game?
On top of that, he calls video gaming REALISTIC conditions? Okay, maybe game physics or what have you are accurate... but how in the crazy hell is pushing a button the same as pressing a pedal and feeling your entire body shift? To call video game driving realistic conditions is wishful thinking.
Given the steadily building controversy with GTA, I doubt any car manufacturer would want to associate with them.
Back with Need for Speed 3: Hot Pursuit (and High Stakes), unless you downloaded a hack, you couldn't race the Ferrari and... Mercedes? (Ferrari for sure) in the mode where you escape from the police because they didn't want the car associated with illegal acts.
I can only imagine their reaction to Rockstar saying "Say, can we put out your car in Grand Theft Auto?"
Then some guy mows down a bunch of pedestrians in his car, and not only do Rockstar get sued, but the car maker as well since they're now linked to it... In the lawsuit happy US, I can't see any car makers legal department saying "This is a good idea!"
It'll be a cold day in hell before licensed cars are in GTA.
The other thing to realize is that people who are car enthusiasts/hobbyists always carry around a top-ten list in their minds. "If I had $30K I would buy a (foo) and add a (bar) and then modify the (wompus)." Having a car in a game will not change somebody's mind, but it lets them live out part of that fantasy and increase the hype.
This isn't about creating demand, it's just another part of the hype machine. Let's say Jim Sixpack has meticulously researched and test driven two comparable cars, but can afford neither right now. He's constantly wishing he had either of them: he has posters of them in his office, he can rattle off the engine specs, he can list the common modifications. Now he buys the next "realistic" car sim, and one of them is in there, and one isn't. He spends the next 8 months racing one of those cars, adding custom touches to it, modifying it, winning race after race in it.
Do you think that might influence his decision of which car to put a downpayment on when his tax refund comes in?
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
"Sony Computer Entertainment America spokesman Ryan Bowling says Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini demanded exorbitant licensing fees - but that's why they aren't in Gran Turismo."
Curiously, not only are the first two in PGR2, but can be damaged as well. I guess its all in the priorities, and GT seems more interested in making sure there is yet another variation of the Evo 7 than anything that might handle differently. The third game's overemphasis on boring box saloons that happen to have very large rally engines in them completely ruined it for me.
Bitter? Never.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
I have to say that all the cars I dream about buying are ones that I've had a lot of fun driving in the various GT games. The Subaru Impreza, Jaguar XJ220 and even the new Mini Cooper are cars that I loved in GT for racing in their respective classes, and consequently are the cars I love.
Equally, cars that I hated driving in GT are cars that I no longer like (such as the new Beetle).
For a lot of people, their only experience of driving expensive cars is games like GT (I've never driven a Jaguar or Subaru in real life). Some of those people will eventually become well off and having aspired to own one of those cars, will buy one.
It's the greatest form of car advertising. Rather than showing pretty pictures of them on TV or in magazines, you let millions of people get behind the wheel and have a test drive.