Slashdot Mirror
NYT on In-Game Advertising
The New York Times has a piece on in-game advertising, likely sparked by the installment of RL billboards in Anarchy Online. They discuss the ways in which ads are placed into games and the possible negative reactions from game players as a result of advertising in entertainment they've already purchased. From the article: "I don't want to pick up a sword and have it read Nike on the side..."
This being said, such product placements would actually detract from most games, such as fantasy games. In GTA it would improve the look: a real city would have real products on billboards. However, I don't think it would add to the "Lord of the Rings" games to have Verizon "The One Ring Tone" cell phone ads in Tengwar etched on the Ring, or Citibank emblazoned across planet surfaces in Star Trek fleet combat games.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Just before people jump on the bashing Anarchy Online bandwagon, I just wanted to remind readers that Anarchy Online's advertisements are only for those who are taking advantage of their free-play initiative. Paying subscribers do not see the advertisements.
Seems to make sense to me.
That being said, I do think that contemporary advertisements are out of place in MMORPGs that do not take place in a contemporary environment! The case of the 'Nike Sword' is an apt analogy, as nothing would shatter the illusion of 'reality' (for whatever thats worse) anything more than an extremely ill-planned product placement.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
As someone who works in a marketing related field, I can say how excited I am at the possibility to narrowcast to individuals. Perhaps these ingame ads can be player-sensitive? For women players, they see soap advertisements while guys see adverts for pickups.
I have a Hush Puppies Hand Gun with silencer of course.
Obviously there are problems in some cases (what are you going to advertise in a world like World of Warcraft?) but thats a problem for another discussion.
FTA: ""If the character drinks a Pepsi to get health points, it doesn't bug me," Mr. Fisher said."
:) It's one thing to eat a hearty turkey and gain some benefit, but Pepsi...? Maybe increase speed a little, but even there, adrenaline packs or something would be a better design decision.
;)
I'm a fan of Pepsi. I prefer it. But drinking Pepsi for health points is probably the worst idea ever!
Either way, fanboys, it doesn't really matter what we think of the idea. They're going to be a huge part of video gaming in the future, and there's nothing we can do about it. It's already taken over television (which, frankly, probably wouldn't exist without it), radio, movies, magazines. Basically every source of entertainment. Except books. But even there, they tend to advertise their own products on the last few pages, or the cover. But, as long as it's not annoying, I can't imagine many people would have a problem with it. We may even see some interesting ads:
"Pepsi Cola - Neo's beverage of choice! Try one today!"
Or, maybe that would suck too...
Digital Sailor
I think that the problem with in-game ads is that at first it's all well and good to see ad's when you play for free in a game with a setting that's condusive to seeing ads, pretty soon they will start to creep into subscription based games where they don't fit at all.
The first time I ever recall seing product placement in a game was in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 arcade game, with pizza hut billboards, this fit the game, as the characters were walking around a city where billboards would be common, and pizza was a big theme in the show anyway.
The most vivid recollection of product-placement that I can remember was in Jet Moto for PSX, with Mountain Dew billboards, which also fit.
I agree with the sentiments that I've seen from other posts that in these types of games, product placement can make the game feel more authentic. Even banner ads not actually in the game would be fine if it allowed me to play a game for free (especially if it was a preview so I could decide if I wanted to pay a monthly fee).
What worries me is what happenes when game makers realize that they can make even more money by charging a monthly fee AND including product placement. How long until we see ads in loading screens (and reduce the incentive for game makers to reduce loading time), how long until we start seeing spam in our in-game message boxes, or have to complete a quest by punching the monkey.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Okay, I can understand Anarchy Online's form of advertising: you're using our product for free, you're going to see the occasional Sprite or Motley Crue billboard. I could also understand some product placement being thrown into the cheaper games, i.e. this game only costs $20 but all the soda machines in the game are Coke-branded. But when new games cost $50 and there's talk of the next generation of console games costing even MORE, why should we have to pay that much and STILL have advertising?
Although I do agree that the well-placed ad (billboards, soda-machines, etc.) can increase the authenticity of a modern-themed game, I think it's more a sad statement on how raped our society has become by these money-hungry bastards. But the worst part is that we all know it won't stop there. I can imagine five years from now we'll be playing a fantasy-themed RPG and every time we level up, we'll have to sit through 2 minutes of commercials just like TV.
I am bombarded with advertising in every facet of life. Why do I have to be force-fed even more ads during my favorite form of escapism?
Publishing is expensive, ads are supposed to defray the cost and save the customer a little money. If this is true for the NYT why would it not be true for games? If they are as ignorable as ads in the newspaper then fine, something like wall posters or billboards. Product placement like in TV and movies, fine as long as it makes sense in the context of the plot/action. A character wearing a Nike t-shirt would not be the end of the world, its not like you don't see that on the street a hundred times a day. If the brand is being artificially pushed in front of your face that's a different story. Having to make a Del Taco run every time your characters gets low on hit points would be bad.
"I don't want to pick up a sword and have it read Nike on the side..."
The Nike logo would be on the boots. The blade would probably be brought to you by Gillette or Remington.
Obviously there is the player concern about it being "world appropriate". Ie. having an ad on a sword in EQ would not, while billboards in AO are. To those worried about this, I say relax. People in advertising are WELL aware of your concerns (trust me, we're not stupid) and most likely would never do this unless they had a DAMN good reason.
Now, I think its only a matter of time before these become clickable and maybe open a pop-under ad that you see once you close the game. If that ever happens and they move from passive ads to interactive ads, I think they should be clearly labeled as such with some text stating that it is a "sponsored ad" just so there's no confusion.
Other than that, in-game ads are here to stay, and look forward to advertisers grabbing every available in-game space, especially once word gets around about how more men are playing video games than watching tv. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone creative invents a 3rd party in-game popup blocker.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Personally, whenever I see any product brand, it takes me out of the money, but then again, that has a lot to do with me being a former hyper-analytical creative writing major who took a lot of media studies courses. Unrecognizable brand names and generic (ie: no-name) brands are quite common. When you're creating a work of art, every detail is important, and to use big brands as THE choice of a given product says either that you believe in a world where the average person only buys products from the corporations (read as much or as little sinister intent into it), or you've just flat-out sold the corporation advertising. Or you can take the harmless view, where not everything has a deeper meaning, and we really aren't surrounded by marketing propaganda everywhere we look.
Consider this. The character is thirsty. Why not just have them drinking from a glass of cola? This way, you know it's cola, but you don't know what company it is. Why has the choice to actually show the CAN been implemented? Answer: marketing. Take it another way. Yes, a character going to fridge and opening a can, in the middle of some conversation, is a perfectly plausible act. So is a character going to the bathroom and taking a leak while maintaining a conversation, and both extraneous actions are equally relevent to the central story line (ie: not very). So, why the need for an action that includes branding? It's gotten that we're so conditioned to it, we pretend it doesn't exist, and the first reaction to having it pointed out to us is that the person doing the pointing is a silly hippy communist, if only because people don't like to learn just how sheeplike their habits are.
Now, that said, in a world of neverending branding, it's still possible to use it in an artistic way.
Right Way: Use of Coke and Pepsi in Election. Reese Witherspoon describes the need for marketing aggressively in her high school campaign, saying that Coke is number one in soft drinks because it spends more money than anybody else in marketing. An annoyed Matthew Broderick, upon drinking a can of Pepsi later on that night, looks at his can, remembers Witherspoon's quote, and decides to get a competitor against Witherspoon.
Wrong Way: Use of Coke in The Thomas Crown Affair. A parched Rene Russo comes into to meet up with the rest of the detective crew. She pauses to pop open a can of Pepsi (not even your average, run of the mill Pepsi, but a Pepsi One), label perfectly held towards the camera, for an extended period. It was just bloody awful.
PS: Gotcha. I don't really believe all that I wrote just now. Personally, I see how branding operates with verisimilitude. That said, sometimes it's worthwhile to have an opposing viewpoint argued out, and something can be both realistic and also a little insidious at the same time.
I find they really detract from the game, With all these damn EA Game Billboards over the place. Its bad enough with they're slogan: Makes me think of Gamers playing chicken with an oncoming bus in a supermarket trolley. But then it is a game where you are doing almost 200mph most of the time you don't really see them. A lot of people don't.
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
The New Yorker had an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about this phenomenon. Apparently advertisers are being involved now at the level of producing and writing the shows. For example, Ford is apparently deeply involved in American Dreams (a drama set in late 1960s America), and they coordinated an episode where the plot revolved around a Mustang with the launch of their new model year. This goes well beyond simple product placement (but I guess falls short of The Disney Channel, although there you know what you're getting yourself into).