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.
Thrice before there has been product placement within the Sims (Dont have Sims 2); None of the instances were bundled with the game, but were available as downloadable content which had desirable stastics.
The first was the Pepsi Vending Machine, the second the McDonald's Food Kiosk, and the third a Intel-branded computer.
They were fairly well accepted and it was quite a good tradeoff: Receiving new content or a way to modify previous content in exchange for corporate branding. Better than pre-packaging the branding, placing a price-tag on the tools, etc.
In exchange for a free gaming experience I am willing to suffer the Coke, Pepsi, and other ads, much like I do in "the real world," or in exchange for television programming free of additional charge. I would play more games if they didn't each cost so much. In fact, I suppose all of us (and many others) might play more by a margin large enough ... for advertising to be valuable enough ... for an ad supported gaming market, and an emergent Google of games?
Advertising will never, ever remain a substitution for cost for long. Companies eventually see it as an opportunity for more income and -- up until the point where customers being leaving -- will steadily increase its presence. This helpful chart explains how every single "content"-based product has and will develop:
1) Product is conceived in some form, for free
2) Product gets commercialized, arrives on market for a high initial price
3) Product is offered with advertisements for a lessened price
4) Once people are used to #3, product is simply made to be ad-only and safe for future price increases
See also: cable tv, internet, dvd movies, software
"Electronic Arts, considered product placements and even wrote some into early storylines, the game's ad and design staffs decided against it."
t he-earth advertisers tried to make their way into games and other software that people use for profit. They want people to pay money for a product to view their advertising! What utter GREED! IMHO
Sim City has to be one of the most outstanding games ever made. Electronic Arts has to be one of the most outsanding game makers ever organized.
AND i knew
that it would be-a matter of time- before the slim-ball--bottom-feeding--pond-scum--scurage-of-
I will continue to support Electronic Arts by buying their products. Why? Because they make a good product and they make good business decisions.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!