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

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.

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.

replay = less game sharing

[spooky_nerd]

If I have a game that's fun to play, but that I don't want to replay, I'm much more likely to give it to a friend. In some cases I won't buy a game like that because I know I can just wait a couple weeks, and get for free from a friend. On the other hand, if a game is still playable for a long time I'm going to hang on to it. Thus my friends will have to buy their own copies, which increases sales.

I remember actually wanting ads in a game once.

[N0decam]

Back in 1997, I bought NHL '97 to go with my shiny new computer. The boards were plastered with ads for Hagg sticks and other crap non-existent products. Primarily because they didn't have the licenses to put real brands in the game.

There was a modding community out there endeavouring to recreate the TV hockey experience as much as possible. I'll admit, I patched my NHL '97 to have actual ads instead of the standard fake ones. Updated equipment skins, on screen scoreboard graphics etc. It enhanced the gameplay, because it made it more like real life.

Now, if you go back and watch NHL hockey from the 70's, you'll be shocked to see that the boards were ad-free. Today, you can go to any small town rink and there are board ads, and ads painted into the ice, and ads on the scoreboard, and ads in the urinals. There has to be a happy medium out there somewhere.

In other news...

[Godeke]

People who purchase sporting equipment pay the same amount whether it sits in a closet gathering dust or is used daily. "We are losing revenue on those who actually use our products," said Mr. Acme producer of many sporting good products. "Our new line of products includes small speakers that are powered by the movement of the product. As the product is used, we will be able to hawk other compatible products via the speakers".

In a test of a prototype product, a basketball fitted with the "AdSpeaker" hardware kept yelling "your game would be improved if you used Acme Basketball Pump to ensure proper inflation" every time we missed a shot.

Sigh

[Lord_Dweomer]

As another posted already pointed out, the reason this is starting to become necessary (especially for MMORPGs) is because of the vicious cycle of games requiring higher budgets to compete on graphics/marketing. In addition, the MMORPGs in particular have a subscriber plateau they tend to reach where the number of new players (read: additional revenue streams) tapers off, at which point it starts getting more expensive to add and maintain new content. Now, this is dealt with in part with Expansion Packs, but then you have the shareholders to please as well, and they always demand more money.

What I think will eventually happen is that eventually it will cause the industry (or part of it) to implode. The smaller developers will eventually be on a more even playing field as development tools become more powerful and cheaper. Its scary how much this is becoming like Hollywood, it really is. Of course its comforting to know there will always be those in the Indie world (developers/directors) who blindside us with amazing work for cheap.

Would discourage games that dont have a reason ads

[marcybots]

Ads can be done in games and actually help the game, if your Shinobi the ninja beating up thugs downtown you should expect to see billboards and having authentic billboards would make the game more authentic. If your a sports star having real ads would also help the game. However I think in game ads may discourage companies from creating games where it is unnatural to have ads, such as a historical game about cavemen or some sort of game where you are in the ancient roman empire, how would adds be placed in these games without ruining their atmosphere? Also how would ads be placed in totally phantasy games like Super Mario brothers, or final fantasy without ruining the cool little worlds these people are trying to create? So what would happen is that although ads can enhance certain games, they will discourage the creation of other games.