The Industry On In-Game Advertising

Gamasutra's weekly 'Ask The Industry' feature deals, this week, with the ever-increasingly relevant issue of the importance of in-game advertising. From the article: "I believe that advergaming will continue to be a growing significant segment of video games. As with movie and TV product placement, games that do a good job of it won't be considered an affront, those that don't will be panned by gamers and critics. It will be interesting to see how the current clash between the Writers Guild of America (and SAG) and product placement interests works out, and whether similar issues will arise between game designers and financial stakeholders in the future. -Kim Pallister, Microsoft Corp"

Comments

Why can't they just be honest?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Just say it. "We can get more money by putting advertisements in games, and it'll generate more revenue than we'll lose by alienating gamers."

The Next Batch of Articles . . .

[Seumas]

Now, let's wait for the next batch of articles where coders and designers and industry mavens try to justify how their hack and slash videogames are "art", while defending the blatant Mountain Dew or US Navy recruitment or Mentos commercials in-game.

You hosers from the previous game/art article want to know the definition of art? I can give you *one* of them:

Picaso never embedded a Wendy's ad in a painting.

Re:The Next Batch of Articles . . .

[BigDork1001]

You hosers from the previous game/art article want to know the definition of art? I can give you *one* of them:

Picaso never embedded a Wendy's ad in a painting.

Oh yeah, well this is considered art.

Why not?

[Red Flayer]

I can't see that anyone would be surprised by this. Advertising and cross-promotion already permeates almost every part of our entertainment media. Music is perhaps the only place where product placement is not widespread within the content, since the industry looks down upon those who do not consider themselves 'artists.'

Of course there are differences, but there are also a lot of parallels between this and the commercialization of the 'pop art' movement. If you consider games to be art, look to Warhol for where the industry is going.

I'm all for it

[meta-monkey]

I'm all for advertising in video games...up to a point. I don't mind billboards or posters on walls, although I'd rather not have to sit through a "Drink Coke" loading screen.

Have you seen the price of games for the Xbox 360? They're going for $60 a pop. It only makes sense, though...next gen games cost a fortune to make. More complex engines, more detailed graphics, motion capture, voice actors, sound tracks with popular music, etc etc. It's a far cry from blocky 8-bit graphics with bleeps and bloops. If game makers can tap another revenue stream and thereby reduce the cost to the gamer, I'm all for it.

Oh, and to cut off the "they won't cut prices! they'll just make more money!" responses, of course prices will come down. That's the way the free market works. If company A can sell their game for $50 instead of $60, and thereby grab market share from company B, who has to charge $60, then of course company A will lower their prices.

Re:I'm all for it

[hal2814]

"Do you seriously think more people have seen Princess Diaries or GI Jane than own GTA or Madden?"

Maybe not, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Games cost $60 to own when they first come out, but they drop in price rather quickly. Madden 2005 is as cheap as $7 now but last year at this time, it was fetching $40. It started at $50 - $55. I've seen Madden 2004 being sold for what it would cost to ship the thing. EA Sports has to throw another $X million into a new game every to keep the Madden franchise afloat. The typical game won't drop in price that quickly but you'll be hard pressed to find any game over 3 years old fetching more than $20. And most games that old tend to fall anywhere from $5 - $15.

A movie will start out at $20 - $30 on video but then after about a year it will drop to about $15 and stay there for a LONG time. Eventually, it might go down to $7 - $10 but typically only if it's not that great a movie. The same game over that period of time may very well be worthless. Also, don't forget that advertisers and pay TV stations will make money for a movie via TV stations paying broadcast rights over the course of many years. Video games simply do not have such an outlet yet (at least not a popular one).

Also, Companies A and B can only fix prices to a certain extent. The only reason there's not a Company C is because there isn't enough financial incentive for there to be a Company C. If the markup is too great from A and B, expect C and maybe even D-Z to come storming out of the gate.

Re:I'm all for it

[Digital Vomit]

Oh, and to cut off the "they won't cut prices! they'll just make more money!" responses, of course prices will come down. That's the way the free market works.

I don't know what country you just stepped off the boat from, but you'll soon learn that's not the way things work here.

If company A can sell their game for $50 instead of $60, and thereby grab market share from company B, who has to charge $60, then of course company A will lower their prices.

Here's a more likely scenario: Company A realizes they can sell their game for $60, the same as company B, while making extra money selling ad space in the game. End of story.

If you think the inclusion of ads is going to reduce the cost of games, I've got a cable channel package to sell you.

How long...

[AdamWeeden]

...before someone invents something like AdBlock for this stuff?

The middle ground?

[NanoGator]

On the surface, I don't mind in-game advertising. If Carl Johnson drank Sprite instead of (whatever the made up name of a soda was), I'd actually prefer that. Vice City would have been more interesting if they could have used billboards from the 80's etc in it. (Although I must say, their parodies were pretty darned funny.)

Just like anything else in this world, it can be taken to a silly degree. One of the reasons I don't like going to IGN.com is because they INSIST on occasionally loading a full-page commercial instead of taking me straight to the news. I can understand that they need to make money, but when it makes me think twice about heading on over, it's not working right.

Truth be told, I don't think advertising in video games is an issue at all. The issue is whether or not the game is entertaining. Being forced to watch a 30 second ad during a game is hardly any different than a game with a 30 second load time or irritating control. Why aren't they that different? Games are measured by 'fun'. Advertising can be a good element or a bad element. Imagine running around Liberty City, passing a TV show, and running across that ad of the Jack in the Box ball with his hole xeroxed.

Re:The middle ground?

[NanoGator]

" Think about all of the in-game radio ads that, instead of trying make you laugh, will be trying to separate you from your money."

Um, those ads in the game do that, too. Don't believe me? Go read any review of the last 3 GTA games and notice the comments made about the sound track in that game. It's also worth noting that the Serenity trailer had the exact goal that you're mentioning. Why not the picthforks over that? For the simple reason that entertainment was achieved. Even TV ads can be entertaining. "This'll be the best prom ever!"

Advertising might = new content

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

True, it might be weird seeing COKE in an INNKEEPERS inventory of goods during WOW, but think. Advertized goods will probably be uber kewl.

COKE
"allways refreshing"
3 min cooldown
must remain seated to drink
USE:
Restores 100 mana / second
If you continue drinking for 15 seconds get a "sugar rush"
that gives you +15 AGI but -10 STA.
Also causes you to "BURP" in chat!

It CAN be ok

[Apreche]

Advertising is ok as long as I don't notice it. Or even better when it makes sense and has no effect. For a good example look at the Ninja Turtles game and Pizza Hut. Makes perfect sense. If you're playing a game and the burger joint is named Merv's Burgers (smiles are free) it's cool, but McDonald's makese sense.

Despite my dislike of McDs I really wouldn't mind this sort of advertising. I don't notice it, it doesn't feel like advertising and it has no effect. It has the added bonus of giving the game developers more money. I am in favor of random companies paying game developers to make their games more genuine by including real world items and getting nothing in return for it other than the illusion that it is somehow helping their sales.