Slashdot Mirror
Videogame or Ad? Hard to Tell
Business Week Online looks at the increasing appeal of videogames to advertisers. Specifically, as has been noted in the past, the ease with which product placement can slip into a game. From the article: "The Sims 2 Open for Business, the expansion pack in the popular Sims franchise that hits stores in March, allows players to launch virtual restaurants, stores, and other entrepreneurial ventures. But, oddly enough, they won't be able to interact with true-to-life financial services companies, or see any on-screen versions of objects, food, or clothing representing recognizable brands. Although the game's publisher, Electronic Arts, considered product placements and even wrote some into early storylines, the game's ad and design staffs decided against it."
If the game is supposed to be 'realistic' and set in a contemporary period, and the ads are where you expect them (i.e. they dont show up during loading periods, but on bus stops and billboards), they can positively contribute to the game experience.
If you're fragging and you see an ad for Preparation H right after you get a headshot, it's obviously a negative experience.
But considering the rising cost of video games I'm wondering whether they're just milking as much cash out of the game as possible. I mean, for $60 I shouldn't expect to see ads in my games.
If you think $60 is too expensive for a game, then do not buy it.
Buy it? No problem. Subscribe to it so that within a couple of months I've increased the their profit margins astronomically compared to a standalone game? Not interested.
Forced to watch ads on top of that? Quit gaming and hope I'm not in the minority...but I'll bet that in the long run, I'm not...
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson