Game Advertising Expanding, Becoming Dynamic?

Thanks to Business Week Online for its feature discussing the rise of videogame advertising, as it charts "spending on in-game advertising, currently estimated at around $200 million a year today worldwide, [and which] could reach $1 billion by 2008." As well as kid-oriented gaming sites such as Neopets.com, where "a player might stop by a Disney theater where he can play a Walt Disney movie-related game to earn Neopoints - good for buying shop space and land in the game", the article mentions Massive Inc., an "in-game advertising specialist" which is now signing up advertisers for "campaign-based advertising" in forthcoming titles from Ubisoft and Atari, explaining the innovation by describing a possible scenario: "The gamer goes online to play a racing game, for example, and a batch of ads is served. When a gamer plays offline, Massive continues to serve ads. The ads are integrated into billboards, posters, and even into the plotline of the game, and they change in real-time."

Comments

Cheaper?

[PhuckH34D]

So... Does this mean that games will be cheaper (or free) in the future?
Probably not I guess, but they should be IMHO.

Re:Cheaper?

[abandonment]

no, probably littered with spyware as a result of the ad-monitoring that goes on - why should games be able to track our every action and provide ads but not online? is this not spyware?

I'm not so sure people will bite...

[chrispyman]

Considering the fact that you have to pay $50 for the latest title, I don't think too many people would enjoy playing a game littered with advertisements. For the most part I find them distracting but I suppose that if the games themselves were free (advertisement subsidized) I suppose I could live with 'em.

Re:I'm not so sure people will bite...

[Unordained]

Do you think most people would put up with the in-between "cheaper, but not free" step? Seems like they'd have to jump from gamer money to ad money, or people might feel they're not getting a good enough deal in the transition period.

What I fail to understand though is how advertising does -anything- anymore. Too much of it. Targetted ads don't help me either -- if I want something, I generally already know I want it, and will do my own searching for the best product and price. If I don't, telling me about it doesn't help either -- I just don't care.

Re:I'm not so sure people will bite...

[nacturation]

Considering the fact that you have to pay $50 for the latest title, I don't think too many people would enjoy playing a game littered with advertisements.

People happily fork over $50 for a Nike shirt which has a huge Nike advertisement plastered on the front -- the swoosh logo. Why people pay a premium effectively to advertise company logos is beyond me, but I honestly don't see the average consumer caring. If it distracts from the gameplay, then people will take notice. However, for games which integrate advertising in a real-life way (eg: billboards along a city street, ads along the boards in a hockey rink, Smith & Wesson shotguns in Doom...) I think people will happily accept it because it's what they're accustomed to.

Re:I'm not so sure people will bite...

[DigitumDei]

Advertising is about brand recognition. Thats why it works, not because it makes people go out and buy stuff NOW, but because when they decide to buy something, they associate it with that brand.

Now a company that doesn't adevertise in games is going to have much less brand recognition with the game playing public and the company that does. Some people will do their research and buy whats best for them, the rest will buy the brand they recognise.

Appropriate quote

[Spuffin]

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
--HL Mencken