In-Game Ads Necessary?

GameDailyBiz is reporting on the increasing frequency with which real-world ads are being included in online game worlds and single-player titles. They discuss the possibility that, with the increasing costs of developing hit games, such measures may be a requirement. There also some callous examination of developer motives. From the article: "Right now, the fact that publishers are putting so much emphasis on multiplayer online play and replay ability is in some ways actually hurting their bottom line. While it's true that an excellent online portion of a title will move some additional copies, who knows how many potential future sales are lost. Whether gamers spent 100 hours with Halo 2 thanks to Xbox Live or 15 hours with Ninja Gaiden, both publishers sold their products for the same $50 MSRP.

Comments

WTF?

[hal2814]

"replay ability is in some ways actually hurting their bottom line"

No, replay ability helps a specific company's bottom line. I will buy games from company X because company X makes good enough games that I will play them often. How often can a company realisticly release top-shelf games? Probably not as long as it takes me to get through a reasonably lengthy game.

TFA = Company PR Advertisement

[torchdragon]

I believe this term was used in the Silicon Laser article I read earlier today.
"A solution looking for a problem."
The biggest problem I have with this article and in game advertising is the word publisher. The people making the game aren't seeing a dime of this money. Publishers look at games simply as money factories and are being shocked at the fact that recreation caters to the needs of those looking for recreation. It certainly does not cater to X Publisher's bottom line. That's great that Halo was a hit, good job on hitting a new market (xbox users) with a new product (an FPS that is accessible by the unwashed masses) and not having any competition while doing it. You are not going to be able to press the same dough out of the machine for release after release after release AND see an increase in profits each time.

Or maybe you will and the gamer population wants cookie cutter titles brought to you by BrandX(tm) and the people looking for innovation should just go throw themselves into a ditch and await the bulldozer.

Business models

[bernywork]

Why should the business model include income from online games?

I know it should be taken into consideration, all well and good, but at the same time, the people crunching the numbers in the first place should see how much money they can get (Best and worst case) and make their decision from there...

I don't think it's the publisher's fault to do this, pushing the studios in that direction is where MS is pushing, that's where they think they are going to get a lot of money from on the 360. On top of this, a lot of people are wanting to see multiplayer. Think about the target market here... Most of these people have a quite reasonable disposable income will have broadband....

If the studios don't make multiplayer games then so be it, for the amount of money, I am sure that someone along the lines has done the business models and figured it out.

I don't think this is one of those things that we really have to worry about. If someone is a moron and fails, then that's supply and demand really.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Irish_Samurai]

putting so much emphasis on multiplayer online play and replay ability is in some ways actually hurting their bottom line.

This is a joke right? When games first took a turn to online play, they sold boatloads. No one buys SOCOM for the single player missions.

The truth is, some jerkoff gaming exec has decided that they should be charging more for games that are played longer (due to online or replayability) and his manner of spinning it to the higher ups is by saying it's affecting the bottom line.

Behavior like that will kill the gaming industry quicker than "sequel only" business plans.

Of course it isn't necessary

[SoCalChris]

There haven't been ads in games up until recently. So why after 20+ years of ad free games do they all of a sudden "need" them? If they're that desperate for money, they need to change some of their business practices.

It's just another money grab.

Re:Of course it isn't necessary

[Dixie_Flatline]

What's changed is that games aren't as easy to make as they used to be. Content is harder to create. Instead of having 2-10 person teams working on a game, a single game can take literally a hundred people several years to make.

In some cases, you're probably right that the team sizes could be a little smaller. However, things like photorealistic environments, physics, writing, and design are all complicated to produce. The more detailed the environments get, the more work artists have to do to make the game look up to snuff. The amount of time it takes has not scaled linearly with technology. Newer graphics engines are fairly big projects, and reasonable physics simulations aren't the sort of thing that you can crack off in a day.

On top of that you've got giant marketing budgets so that games can try and outsell each other before a copy is even pressed, and the realities of dealing with a global market.

There are lots of good games still made by small teams. However, most of the games that people want are definitely not small games with small budgets. Maybe that's something that's wrong with the industry. I don't know.