Slashdot Mirror
In-Game Advertising Breaks Out
UID1000000 writes "MSNBC reports that companies like Nielsen are implementing tracked advertising in video games. Viacom is also considering in-game advertising. I can't wait until your first person shooter stops and drinks a nice cold refreshing soda."
I will not pay for a game that tracks me or downloads ads. I am not even sure I would play it for free under thsoe conditions.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
You and I may not, but millions will, especially if it means less expensive (free?) games. Targetted and tracked advertising is the way things are moving. Pushing a commercial to thousands or millions is going by by, which is why were seeing thigs like Google's Adwords/AdSense becoming very popular. Its targetted advertising.
This probably will not mean less expensive games, and it certainly will not mean free games (giving it away for free makes it less valuable as an advertising medium; free things don't always get used). The game companies will want to maintain the perceived value of their games by not positioning it as a cheap, second-rate game. Of course, we know that it'd just be cheap spyware, so you can count me out too. That's my internet connection, thanks, and just like spam I don't want them using it for their benefit and not mine.
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
They want *me* to pay for games.. so that I can see advertisements??!
:-> )
I absolutely do not see how this benefits gamers in any way.. game prices will NOT go down (exclusive scoop.. you heard it here, folks!), and game quality will suffer (progammers will be forced to change their mindset from "what will make this a good game?" to "how can we maximize the ad space?")
I prefer the "fake" ads in many games s/a GTA.. they're funny (I want a Mibatsu Monstrosity
I am the maverick of Slashdot
You and I may not, but millions will, especially if it means less expensive (free?) games.
The thing is, it won't result in cheaper games. As an example, take a look at the movies. Back in the 80's, it was unheard of to have advertisements for products (other than the coming attractions, that is, which had been established almost as early as the movie theater itself). Now, we have 10 minutes of so of ads for all sorts of crap, reducing a trip to the movies to being TV you pay $10 or more for.
And has your ticket price gone down at all since they started showing ads? Concessions gotten any cheaper? No. Prices still continue to climb. The theaters and Hollywood just pocket the extra revinue.
A key part of this is the tracking. Google Adwords goes to certain pains to maintain a privacy barrier between users of Adwords (via site visits, searches, etc.) and those who establish a business relationship based on an Adwords ad (that is - someone who clicks on an ad... and even then the information is limited). This, among other user-favorable approaches to advertising, is what has made Google's system a success.
The grandparent doesn't say what ad tech they used. But the problem is that by this time, the well has been poisoned. Any app that admits to being "advertising supported" will be viewed as a likely carrier for untold amounts of scumware (spyware, et al). Even if it isn't. The perception is there - and for good reason. Scumware companies have soured our view of that model.
The interesting thing is that Google entered a poisoned market. Advertising ilk such as Doubleclick polluted online advertising with inappropriate expectations (why is just seeing an ad on TV acceptable but an online campaign a failure if it doesn't generate click-throughs) and playing games with tracking cookies, pop-ups/unders, java, and flash. It's a wonder anyone loads ad banners at all (and an increasing number of users don't). Yet Google has flourished in this wasteland. And a large part of this has to do with their behavior. At the least, they don't behave in a manner that makes it worth the effort to block them. And that only makes an already effective system more effective.
Purveyors of "tracking" and "targeted" ad technology should be very careful as to what limits their targets will accept.
Nothing. Nothing in the whole freaking world, makes me madder than being forced to sit through an advertisement.
I can think of something. "I, Robot": "Don't you just love these shoes? They're great. They're from the year 2004. Can you zoom in on them? Cool shoes, aren't they? Grandma, make sure you ask me about my shoes later in the film, so I can show them to the crowd yet again. Buy these shoes, guys. Come on, you know you want to."
This sort of blatent product placement is a load of, excuse my language, pure fucking bullshit. It distracts from the movie and makes me feel like I just paid $10 to see a 2 hour commercial. Next time this shit shows up in a film, I'm walking out and demanding my money back.
This was as bad as the Subway stuff in Happy Gilmore. Except when Adam Sandler did it, it was a big joke and setup for laughs. He didn't try to take it seriously.
You want product placement? Stick a coke in a fridge. Have Neo use a Nokia phone. He's going to need a phone anyway, so it might as well be a slick new model that I can go out and buy if I want to. That's realistic and appropriate. Don't stop the whole movie so you can show me your fucking shoes.
Let's put it this way: Put the item there but don't make a single reference to it. If you have to zoom in on it and talk about it, you're going to piss people off.