In-Game Advertising Moves Towards Testing

Thanks to HomeLAN for the news that Activision and Nielsen will be testing in-game adverts starting at the end of the year. Though we've mentioned this previously, the press release would seem to indicate things are moving into their final stages. "The two companies announced that they are launching a groundbreaking test using the newly-released Activision video game, Tony Hawk's Underground 2 to determine how long and how often players interact with brands. The test will feature Nielsen's watermarking technology that uses audio encoding to uniquely identify when players are exposed to product placements within the game."

Comments

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the entire game is just a test for a new advertising method? If I bought that game, I'd feel cheated out of my fifty bucks.

Re:WTF?

[JackBuckley]

I have to agree with the parent's sentiment on this one. People who watch television or listen to radio put up with advertising because the programming is provided at no cost. Cable channels and product placement in films blurs this line considerably, but advertising in games completely shatters it. I simply will not buy a game with advertising, period. Not to mention the privacy concerns raised by other posters, I find the idea of in-game ads on a product costing upwards of $50 jarring and offensive.

I also would not play "free" or subsidized games in return for exposure to advertising, but others may find this idea acceptable. How about a choice? $49.99 for ad-free, $19.99 at launch for a internet-enabled ad-full version?

Re:Already happening

[LittLe3Lue]

For the most part I am very annoyed with game companies starting to introduce ads into games, especially if they pause the game. If ads were short and funny, it would be alright, but I dont think there is any justification for advertising in games.

When I pay for cable TV, I expect advertising, because I am paying the cable company to deliver me feed from the networks. The networks themselves need to make money somehow. I dont pay them directly.

But, when it comes to games, I pay for the game. The extra money they make off of ads does not benefit me, the viewer, at all.

If I was to get a game for free because it included ads, then I wouldnt complain. But if i become forced to watch Joe Scateboarder 'drink coke because its better then pepsi' every time I do a trick, I'll chuck the game out the window.

Anomalous Coward says: Spyware senses tingling

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly are theyplanning on using this information? Are they hoping that consumers will just go out and buy this stuff?
Maybe they have something insidious in mind, like doing this in online capable games and having some sort of spyware that phones home from your console.

(Good thing I'm posting in the games section, where no one will ever hear about this. I don't have to worry about evil corporations hearing about this idea and implementing it as long as this story doesn't hit the front page.)

Testing?!

[Asprin]

I thought we were already doing this.

How many ricers went out and bought TRD and NISMO stickers for their Hyundai's because of Gran Turismo?

Re:blargh

[jpmkm]

I'm sure there will be enough people like you who will make exceptions for this to still be profitable.

Re:Already happening

[Goldberg's Pants]

The only arena where advertising doesn't bother is racing sims. Commercial sponsorships are part and parcel of the sport, so to be realistic, they have to really have them.

"Doom 4: Bought to you by Pepsi. The taste for a new FPS generation."

Fuck off.

Re:Already happening

[Ralin_JM]

How do you feel about the new espn line of sports games that undercut the price(selling for $20 new)? If they include advertising to subsidise the price cut, would you mind?