Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Looking to Join In-Game Ad Arena

Posted by Zonk on from the soon-to-be-seen-outside-the-thunderbrew-distillery dept.

njkid1 writes "As part of a plan to expand its advertising efforts to all forms of media, it would appear that Google is actively seeking to get involved in the in-game ad business. A Wall Street Journal report states that the company is in talks to acquire Adscape Media. From the article: 'If Google does purchase Adscape, it would give the web company an opportunity to leverage a whole other medium, one that Google has apparently been interested in for some time now ... Interestingly, Google had apparently considered an acquisition of in-game ad firm Massive Inc. last year before Microsoft came along and bought Massive for around $200 million. The Journal report suggests that an acquisition of Adscape would only fuel the long-standing competition between Microsoft and Google, as Google could potentially form an alliance with Microsoft's video game rival Sony.'"

52 comments

  1. It's Official by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google is now Evil!

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:It's Official by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because the are going to offer a service end users don't want doesn't make them evil. The publishers/studios that are going to use the service are evil.

      Ofcourse this doesn't change the fact that I don't like in-game advertising and that I won't buy a game that has it. Not even if google provides the ads.

    2. Re:It's Official by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know that. It was supposed to be funny. Apparently the mods today are google fanboys, since my first post got modded "Troll". Jerks.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    3. Re:It's Official by eln · · Score: 1

      If you find the publishers that will use this service evil, why would you not consider the company enabling them to do so evil as well? Would you change your mind if the enabling company was called Microsoft instead of Google?

      Google is seeking to profit from an advertising tactic that most people find extremely distasteful, if not downright evil. The fanboys will stick up for them, but their image will be tarnished in the eyes of every other gamer if this thing takes off.

    4. Re:It's Official by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      Replying to your own post with "First post" didn't win you any fans methinks.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    5. Re:It's Official by cavtroop · · Score: 1

      Try this one: "Just because hitmen offer a service that other users want, doesn't make them evil. The person putting the contract out is evil." doesn't sound so right now, does it? They do this, they become an enabler, and a little 'less good' in my book.

    6. Re:It's Official by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      I know. But I was just so damn surprised! (I'm a first post virgin. Cut me some slack mods!)

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    7. Re:It's Official by Amouth · · Score: 1

      no.. but if google partners with Sony they will be by all means.. EVIL

      alteast in my book - not that it matters any

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:It's Official by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you find the publishers that will use this service evil, why would you not consider the company enabling them to do so evil as well?

      The term "evil" is a moral judgement. Moral judgments are, by definition, subjective. Why even bother discussing this?

      A more productive discussion is the ethics of what Google and publishers are doing here. Is it ethical to put ads in a game you publish? In my opinion that depends upon the wishes of the creators of the work being published. If an artist or group of artists wants to stick an ad on that work, what is unethical about that? In some cases the ad actually makes the art better and is a part of it. In other cases it is just an attempt to cash in. In either case, I don't see anything unethical.

      Now the artists and the publishers are not always the same people. If a publisher wishes to change artwork by including advertisements and the artists do not, well I can see an argument for that being unethical, especially given the distribution cartels and unethical copyright laws.

      So what about the people who enable that behavior via an advertising channel? Well, since their advertising channel can be used in both the former and latter cases and since they are taking no unethical action themselves, I'd say they're in the clear. Ethically a gun manufacturer has no ethical liability unless they know or think they know the tool they sell will be used unethically and even then the connection is tenuous. Refusing the service to some people is passing judgement on their supposed future actions, both by claiming to be responsible for preventing those actions and judging what they do. This bears significant ethical responsibility, more-so that impartially providing a service.

      Would you change your mind if the enabling company was called Microsoft instead of Google?

      This is why discussing ethics is more useful. Being objective, it does not matter who is taking the action. The ethics do not change.

      Google is seeking to profit from an advertising tactic that most people find extremely distasteful, if not downright evil.

      Yeah and some people think providing free access to the Qua-ran is distasteful if not downright evil. Some people think making it easy for people to find pornographic pictures is distasteful if not downright evil. Who cares? Since there is no objective definition of "evil" Google is free to go by their own moral beliefs if their slogan is anything other than marketing. I don't care who provides advertising channels and I hope someone does. That does not mean I'll buy a game that has ads that I don't think add to the game, or which is not offered at a price I am willing to pay in compensation for that.

    9. Re:It's Official by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Try this one: "Just because hitmen offer a service that other users want, doesn't make them evil. The person putting the contract out is evil." doesn't sound so right now, does it?

      Again, lets bring this conversation into something we can actually discuss and make it "ethical" and "unethical" rather than "good" or "evil." A hitman is taking an action that is unethical, or at least bears ethical responsibility. The person hiring them is directing that unethical activity and specifically knows that by paying them the end result will be an attempt at this unethical act. As a result, both bear responsibility for that action. As to whether or not killing someone is "evil" is a subjective value.

      Now lets consider this in terms of what Google is doing. Is providing ads from those who wish to advertise to those who wish to present advertisements in any way unethical? They presumably know those ads will be in video games, but are putting ads in video games inherently unethical? Can ads make video games better if used appropriately? If a video game publisher provided games for free, but included ads to pay for development would that be inherently unethical? What if it was an open source project that wanted to host a MMORPG that was free to all but needed revenue to pay for servers and bandwidth?

      I contend that placing ads in video games is not inherently unethical. Further, while it can be unethical, such as placing ads in a game against the artists wishes using a distribution cartel and unethical copyright laws, there is no reason for Google to assume that will be the case and take responsibility for the actions of others.

      They do this, they become an enabler, and a little 'less good' in my book.

      When they index porn and enable people to find it they become a lot "less good" in many people's estimation. When they take a lot of actions they are considered "evil" by someone. The term is subjective. The pertinent question is, are they ethically responsible and holding true to their own subjective views of good and evil?

    10. Re:It's Official by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      I really don't think it's as subjective as you are making it out to be.

      While I will agree that generally the concepts of good and evil can be highly subjective, if you narrow the scope a bit you will see that it becomes significantly less subjective.

      Let's look at general "business ethics". In business, from a CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE Business are "Good" when they provide a quality product or service at a reasonable price. Businesses are "Evil" when they lower the quality of their product or service without lowering the price, or raise the price beyond what is generally accepted as reasonable, or devalue their product in some manner that it becomes less desirable, while still maintaining a high price. Alternately, businesses are considered "Evil" when they are engaged in anti-competitive practices as defined by law. The words Good and Evil are simply used as synonyms for ethical and unethical or legal and illegal.

      In our real-world case, Adding advertisements to games devalues the game as it damages two very important game features: Immersion and Escapism. To a gamer, often the reason for playing games is to escape the stress and humdrum of everyday life. Part of what makes that escapism function is the overall immersion in the game atmosphere. In-game ads almost always take away from both of those two crucial (if intangible) value points to any game.

      There are also privacy concerns to deal with. It has been shown that some in-game ad companies do individual data tracking on game players. This is considered a privacy violation, which is considered highly unethical by many.

      Thusly, when Ads are placed into a game, particularly one where they did not exist before, the value of the game is reduced. If then the cost of the game is not correspondingly reduced, the action of including ads appears to steal value. The gamer feels that something has been taken from them without compensation. Google, by involving itself in value-theft by purchasing an in-game ad company, is enabling unethical or "Evil" behavior. Those who consciously enable Evil (unethical) behavior are themselves Evil (unethical).

      Thusly Google is now Evil.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    11. Re:It's Official by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Businesses are "Evil" when they lower the quality of their product or service without lowering the price, or raise the price beyond what is generally accepted as reasonable, or devalue their product in some manner that it becomes less desirable, while still maintaining a high price.

      I'm a consumer and I don't consider that to be evil. I'd consider it them doing business and not giving me what I want. If they kill tens of thousands of workers in India because of lax safety procedures, I can see applying the term "evil." That, however, is my subjective view. It also demonstrates why discussing this in terms of good and evil is pretty pointless.

      Alternately, businesses are considered "Evil" when they are engaged in anti-competitive practices as defined by law.

      I don't think that makes them "evil" either. It just makes them criminals who are detracting from society. The guy on welfare down the road who smokes pot all day is both a criminal and a detriment to society. I don't consider him to be evil.

      The words Good and Evil are simply used as synonyms for ethical and unethical or legal and illegal.

      But they shouldn't be because they are different concepts and trying to equate them results in miscommunication. It also trains people to assume they are the same thing so they assume anything illegal is also unethical and is also evil. By this logic, black people should still be slaves, since the law stated it was illegal for them to be freed and thus unethical and evil for that to happen so no one should have supported it.

      Ethics are objective. They don't make judgments about what is "right" or "evil." They distinguish who is responsible for the consequences of some action. Good, evil, right, and wrong all are subjective opinions about whether that action was acceptable and legal and illegal describe the laws we have designed to imperfectly promote the common good.

      In our real-world case, Adding advertisements to games devalues the game as it damages two very important game features: Immersion and Escapism.

      Nope. In the real world adding ads might devalue those aspects of the game or they might increase that value by adding variety and realism. It depends upon the application and the person experiencing it. Further, not all games rely upon or consider immersion and escapism to be beneficial. Some games relate to the real world and promote learning about it (think trivia). Here's a question for you. Is it either unethical or evil for me to create a work of art without value, like spitting on cardboard, and offering it for sale for 10 million dollars?

      There are also privacy concerns to deal with. It has been shown that some in-game ad companies do individual data tracking on game players. This is considered a privacy violation, which is considered highly unethical by many.

      So? It can be shown that some kitchen cutlery is used in murders. Does that make steelworkers ethically responsible for murder?

      Thusly, when Ads are placed into a game, particularly one where they did not exist before, the value of the game is reduced.

      ...or enhanced, depending upon the game and the way they are integrated.

      If then the cost of the game is not correspondingly reduced, the action of including ads appears to steal value.

      Okay, supposing it does, do explain how Google or another company providing a conduit between any advertisers and any game makers is responsible for the publisher's pricing?

      Google, by involving itself in value-theft...

      Value-theft?!? Do you by any chance work for the RIAA? They're selling a product for a price. If you don't like the combination of price and product don't buy it. They don't have a monopoly on games. If you do buy it and don't like the ads, that is no more "value-theft" than if they make all the walls in some level have an unpleasant orange color you don't like. It isn't "theft" at all.

      Those who consciously enable Evil

    12. Re:It's Official by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      The real problem here is that we know that the most that the average person is going to do is complain, and that people can put as much horrible advertising in games as they want and no one will stop them or stop buying the games. It can be a game set in a forboding manor house in the late 18th century, but we're still going to have to hear that Coke is "the pause that refreshes."

      How do we, or me at least, know this? Television. They now have television advertising during the shows, covering up huge portions of the screen. Maybe I don't want to know what the pick four numbers are, but the idiots who do don't seem to care if they block half the screen.

      The solution for TV? Wait for the DVD (to come to the library if you are cheap). The solution for games? I don't know...

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    13. Re:It's Official by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The real problem here is that we know that the most that the average person is going to do is complain, and that people can put as much horrible advertising in games as they want and no one will stop them or stop buying the games.

      I will. You see I'm part of the largest market segment, the casual gaming market. I have choices and will choose the games that don't annoy me.

      How do we, or me at least, know this? Television. They now have television advertising during the shows, covering up huge portions of the screen.

      TV is nearly a monopoly in many places and the production/distribution buyout locks out most smaller players. That said, I don't watch ads on TV. I skip them with my DVR. If there are ads on the screen while I'm watching, I simply don't watch. If I want to see a series, I'm happy to get it on Netflix. More and more TV is moving towards IP TV, which may bring competition back... we'll see. The point is, computer games are already in that democratized distribution channel. If a game comes out with annoying ads in it, are you going to buy it? If so, you have yourself to blame.

    14. Re:It's Official by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  2. No problem here by ThinkWeak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as it results in my games costing $20.00 less or so, I'm all for it. Put up a Subway poster on the wall in my next Gears of War game. Have flashing billboards with the new Tag bodyspray. Whatever you want. Just pass the savings along to the consumer. That's all I ask.

    1. Re:No problem here by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll never get it. This is the "Big Lie (tm)" that all the in-game ad pushers have been selling. The ads do not, and will not EVER make your games cheaper. SOE has been pushing in-game ads for over a year now on many of it's games. Guess what? The Subscription prices have NOT COME DOWN! The in-game ads are NOT to make the game cheaper for gamers. They are there to provide on-going profit margins for game manufacturers. The profits aren't coming back to the consumers, they are going into the game company coffers!

      Now, once those extra profits are there, we may see an improvement in development as they re-invest in staff, but there isn't any way to predict when or where that will happen. More likely what we will see is a drop in ad-inappropriate games.

      Let's face it. Ads are only tolerated by the gaming community in games where they "fit" (Coke and Pepsi machines in CS, Billboards in racing games, Etc.) Where the heck would ad billboards "fit" into say, Eve-Online or WOW? They won't. And over time, as those particular titles age and become less popular, you will see a reluctance on the part of game companies to take a risk on an ad-inappropriate game, as they won't have that reliable income stream potential.

      Say hello to ads, say goodbye to creative gaming.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:No problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I can see ads working in EVE, as long as they worked it into the storyline.

      "Archeological research has discovered a technological treasure - documents dating to the pre-collapse days. One of these documents shows the formula to a form of drink called "Pepsi-Cola". Tests by Quafe Cola indicate that this drink tastes great, is less filling". (or something along those lines)

      Or how about finding "ancient design" starship blueprints for the "Dodge Ram" class freighter?

      OK, nevermind, this is an awful idea.

    3. Re:No problem here by Snosty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your cynicism is partially justified, but not fully. In economics there exists a concept called "normal profit" the gist of which I'm not going to explain but you need to look up. In short if profits from in-game ads start driving total profit of the game company up to an attractive level new competitors will be drawn into this industry and competition will drive prices down. This is a pretty fundamental concept of supply and demand and would work wonderfully in this situation...

      BUT

      The gamer's problem, however, is going to be that they really don't care about the subscription price enough that they'd be willing to play something other than their favourite game because the subscription price is higher than a competing game they don't enjoy as much. In this case they're pretty much stuck. They have the ability to vote with their dollars but they won't. No sympathy from me.

      Video games are not commodities and as such if you really want to play the really hot game you can't expect them to fight tooth and nail to shave a few percent off the price to pass on to you. They don't need to.

    4. Re:No problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit. I don't play MMOs because of the fees. I didn't buy an xbox 360 because the games cost more and the console is expensive too. I didn't buy Dark Messiah because I don't want to upgrade my PC to play it. Gamers can and do vote with their dollars.

    5. Re:No problem here by Evro · · Score: 1

      SOE has been pushing in-game ads for over a year now on many of it's games. Guess what? The Subscription prices have NOT COME DOWN! The in-game ads are NOT to make the game cheaper for gamers. They are there to provide on-going profit margins for game manufacturers. The profits aren't coming back to the consumers, they are going into the game company coffers! I'd say this holds true for all industries, and not even limited to advertising. Companies want to make more money any way they can, and this is NEVER passed on to the consumer. If Gap sells a shirt for $15 that it costs them $4 to produce, and they find a new supplier that can sell them the same shirt for $1, are they going to lower the price of the shirt to $14, or pocket the extra dollar? They'd laugh at the idea.
      --
      rooooar
    6. Re:No problem here by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Gamers can and do vote with their dollars.

      If you don't really buy games in the first place (which in your case appears to apply to MMO's, console games or any new 3D titles for the PC[1]) it's not really going to be 'voting with your dollars', it's just you continuing to not buy games.

      It could be argued that in doing so you are sending a single to publishers to make cheaper / simpler games, but I'm not sure that is a message that's going to be paid any heed when there are so many gamers who can and are willing to spend a significant amount of money on games they like.

      [1] DM can be pretty taxing for a highend PC at higher detail levels, but if you really can't run it at decent speeds at say roughly medium quality detail you're not going to be able to run other new titles at a decent quality level either.

  3. Most likely... by lanceleader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gamers will not care if there are in games ads as long as they are not forced to watch the ads.

    1. Re:Most likely... by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Except that you are "forced" to watch the ads, in that they become a part of the game textures. In other words, unless you are closing your eyes every 10 seconds, you can't help BUT see an ad.

      Now, you aren't "forced" to watch the ads in the sense that you have to sit through a commercial while waiting for a level to load, or during game startup. But who is to say that won't happen in the future? The game companies understand the old adage about boiling a frog. They know that if they go full bore with slapping ads and commercials all through the game that gamers will revolt. So they turn up the heat slowly. They start with unobtrusive ads placed in places you would expect an ad (soda machines, billboards, etc.) and then slowly ramp-up from there. Eventually, we are stuck sitting and watching 15 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of game time. Our kids (assuming slashdotters can attract a mate to breed) will be playing games stuffed to the gills with commercials and will think that it's always been that way.

      It's important to stand up NOW against this type of invasive advertising. Refuse to buy or subscribe to any game that uses in-game ads. If you are canceling a subscription, MAKE CERTAIN that the game company understand that it was the ADS that drove you away. if we stand up now, the fight will be easy. If we wait it will be too late.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  4. Adword possibilities by RyoShin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Headache Pain Relief
    Taking too many headshots? Use Tylenol
    Extra Strength (TM) as directed to
    take care of those nasty headaches.

    Own Your Own Garden
    Make sure you can trust what you
    eat- get your own tools to do your
    own farming.

    Time management
    Worrying too much about a RUSH?
    Use our proven Time Management
    method to take control of your
    hectic life.

    1. Re:Adword possibilities by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be Pwn Your Own Garden?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Adword possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this Tylenol? Is that a US-only drug? Is that like paracetamol?

      RUSH? That's a chain of hairdressing shops isn't it?

      Parochial in-game ads like that would be terrible for consumers not in the target market. And imagine debugging a heap of localised ads if they were any more complicated than a straight bitmap texture.

  5. Oh dear! by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

    I bet we'll start seeing 'BUY YOUR INGAME CASH HERE!' adverts like we see on many how-to sites for some of the more popular MMOs (namely WoW and my favourite, Anarchy Online).

    --
    ilovegeorgebush
  6. Text ads on billboards? by 1sockchuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can advertise whatever you want in Google's online games, so long as its all-text ad with a 35-character headline, two 35-character lines, and a link.

  7. Bad For Consumers by Atomm · · Score: 1

    I equate this to the gazillion commercials before movies start. The theaters saw it as a way to increase revenue and the consumer is still paying a premium for tickets. It all boils down to the amount of saturation the market will bear and has nothing to do with lower game costs.

    I applaud Anarchy Online for their Ad based business model. In exchange, they actually give you some value. So far, all other games want premium dollars for the game, then still want to show you ads. Ala Battlefield 2142. No thanks!

    --
    RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
  8. I am all for it, if... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Games that are full of ad's go down in price.

    We all know that is not going to happen, the Gaming industry will claim it's offsetting other rising costs, just like how the movie industry is claiming the same for in movie placement..

    If I have to go to a Vault energy drink vending machine in Ut2007 to power up during battle, that will really affect gameplay.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Future ad ironies by shirizaki · · Score: 3, Funny

    *hiding behind a piece of wall, reloading*
    Need ammo? Go to ammosuppliers.com! Save 20%

    *breaking intoa bank*
    "Need better security? Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx!

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
  10. Head on apply directly to the headshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Head on apply directly to the headshot

    Head on apply directly to the headshot

    Head on apply directly to the headshot

  11. Already been done by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    In 200's "Parasite Eve II," a survival horror game from Square for PS1, an essential recovery item (restores a ton of HP and MP) is a can of Coke from a Coke machine. It's a jarring mood-killer in what was otherwise a very atmospheric and immersive game.

    Don't get me wrong, one could conceivably handle Coke machines as part of the urban landscape. However, when an overhyped soft drink is made out to be something that can majorly regenerate your character's life and magic, and when vanquished monsters start dropping cans of it as a reward, it all gets a bit hard to.. um.. swallow.

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    1. Re:Already been done by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      Hmm... you know, Coca-Cola was an essential recovery item in Infocom's The Lurking Horror, but it wasn't a mood killer. Mainly because you were a college student pulling an all-nighter and the Coke was to keep you awake. (If you didn't stay awake, you suffered a grisly demise.)

      Of course, in this case I'm pretty sure it wasn't product placement... though now I wonder...

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    2. Re:Already been done by tepples · · Score: 1

      the Coke was to keep you awake. (If you didn't stay awake, you suffered a grisly demise.)

      Of course, in this case I'm pretty sure it wasn't product placement

      Then why not put in Mountain Dew, which has more caffeine per can?

  12. When Google does in game ads by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    The targeting will be awesome.

    Just imagine sitting behind a box with a sniper rifle in CS and seeing "HI I see you are camping, maybe you would like to own a real AWP, go to DeadCheapSniperRifles.com"

    Or maybe as you are running around on DE Dust "Get your explosives at Joe's explosive shack, get into the real game"

    Or "Take a breath, smell something? Buy Bobs Game Grit Cleaner for all those awkward smells"

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    1. Re:When Google does in game ads by ChangelingJane · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could throw some online dating site ads into CounterStrike as a humanitarian effort.

  13. Crossed line by sinij · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google just officially crossed the line and become Another Souless Corporation. Next they will be looking into putting advertising for funeral homes in hospital emergency rooms.

  14. Why do people feel ripped off by advertising? by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

    Okay, I know this is Slashdot, the bastion of "everything should be free now, gimme", and I for one highly dislike the idea of in-game advertising (unless it's funny), but seriously, what is the reasoning that goes behind the idea that if you pay for something, even just a little bit, that somehow it's immoral for a company to take product placement/ad money.

    To me, in a "free market" (yeah right, but that's another post) as long as the company does not hide that it has this advertising in it, then you know what you are paying for when you buy it. 1337 game XYZ that you've waited 6 years for has ads you have to watch in it? Boo hoo, it's just a game, if you don't want it don't buy it.

    There's no "right" to quality entertainment products. If you don't like what big labels are doing, support small labels, shareware people, or open source. There's also 30 years of great games out there right now, many of which you can play for free! Sure most have crap for graphics, but today's games will be considered almost as bad 30 years from now.

    1. Re:Why do people feel ripped off by advertising? by 1sockchuck · · Score: 1

      The key is the "unless it's funny" exception. Most gamers have a sense of humor (probably why there's so many game-related web conmics), and advertisers that understand the culture and audience should be able to come up with ads that don't waste the advertisers' money or the gamers' time.

  15. Hanlon's razor by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you find the publishers that will use this service evil, why would you not consider the company enabling them to do so evil as well? Would you change your mind if the enabling company was called Microsoft instead of Google?

    Makers of viruses, worms, and spyware are evil. Microsoft is merely careless in enabling this by choosing lax security settings for older versions of the Windows OS out of the box. Robert J. Hanlon warned us in Murphy's Law book two to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

  16. Entry barriers by tepples · · Score: 1

    if profits from in-game ads start driving total profit of the game company up to an attractive level new competitors will be drawn into this industry and competition will drive prices down. This is a pretty fundamental concept of supply and demand and would work wonderfully in this situation

    Entry barriers may prevent new competitors from starting production if it requires products or services from a monopolist or oligopolist, such as the holder of patents on in-game advertising business methods or (unless HTPC gaming picks up momentum) the holder of trade secrets on the authentication keys used to get software to load on set-top gaming machines.

    The gamer's problem, however, is going to be that they really don't care about the subscription price enough that they'd be willing to play something other than their favourite game because the subscription price is higher than a competing game they don't enjoy as much. In this case they're pretty much stuck. They have the ability to vote with their dollars but they won't. No sympathy from me.

    For those playing at home: This market situation, where some buyers prefer a given service over its inexact substitute that may have a lower price, is called monopolistic competition.

  17. Ads in Animal Crossing? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Own Your Own Garden
    Make sure you can trust what you
    eat- get your own tools to do your
    own farming.

    How much do golden shovels cost nowadays?

  18. Open source console? by tepples · · Score: 1

    There's no "right" to quality entertainment products. If you don't like what big labels are doing, support small labels, shareware people, or open source.

    Which set-top gaming machine is marketed in the United States to run the works of "small labels, shareware people, or open source"?

    1. Re:Open source console? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hmm... a Set-top equivalent to the GP2X...

      Nah. You can already play all your emus on Dreamcast and Xboxen... it'll never take off.

    2. Re:Open source console? by tepples · · Score: 1

      You can already play all your emus on Dreamcast and Xboxen... it'll never take off.

      Dreamcast is discontinued. Xbox isn't modded out of the box, and selling a modchip (even one loaded with Cromwell) or a modchip installation service is a crime in some countries.

    3. Re:Open source console? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And you think the big software houses wouldn't decend on the emus and manufacturer of the box (and anyone else their landsharks can smell) like a pack of starving coyotes?

      If you build it, they won't necessarily come. The GP2X is proof of that (though, design-wise, it really is a mediocre device, even for a handheld).

  19. Just what we need, MORE in-game advertising by adamkennedy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using EVE Online as an example, almost every site related to the game is covered by Google with ads for sites that sell you in-game currency for cash.

    Some of these sites have said no matter what they do, that's consistently what Google thinks is the best ads for them.

    So now will we have ads in-game for things that are against the Terms of Service for half these games? Presumably this is one big kink Google will have to work out before they start advertising.

    Also there's the problem of being in an alternate universe (EVE, WoW, etc aren't set on earth) and seeing ads for real world products. Surely that will break your suspension of disbelief.

  20. Emulators aren't the only thing by tepples · · Score: 1

    And you think the big software houses wouldn't decend on the emus and manufacturer of the box (and anyone else their landsharks can smell) like a pack of starving coyotes?

    Why? If for reasons of violation of the copyright in the ROMs, then emulators aren't the only product of "small labels, shareware people, or open source". If for other reasons, than what exactly do you mean by this?

    If you build it, they won't necessarily come. The GP2X is proof of that

    The GP2X is also not sold in EBGames/GameStop or, to my knowledge, any similar chain in the United States.

    1. Re:Emulators aren't the only thing by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And you think the big software houses wouldn't decend on the emus and manufacturer of the box (and anyone else their landsharks can smell) like a pack of starving coyotes?

      Why? If for reasons of violation of the copyright in the ROMs, then emulators aren't the only product of "small labels, shareware people, or open source". If for other reasons, than what exactly do you mean by this?

      Because said "small labels, shareware people, and open source" don't seem to pay a lot of attention to these sort of devices. That's why I used the GP2X as an example. 99% of the talk on the "official unofficial forums" (gp32x.com) is about emulators. There's a GTA knockoff and a Bosconian knockoff being sold, but really, the emus are the only things that tend to survive past the "extremely beta" stage.

      If you build it, they won't necessarily come. The GP2X is proof of that

      The GP2X is also not sold in EBGames/GameStop or, to my knowledge, any similar chain in the United States.

      Why would a set-top box be any different?