More Advertising in Your Next Xbox Game

ejwong writes "TheGameFeed is reporting on Microsoft's plans to offset Xbox360 game costs with more in game advertising under its subsidiary, Massive. In-game ads are gaining popularity and the wave isn't going to stop. Publishers see this as a huge potential for increased game revenues to help offset the rising development costs for the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii. The question is how far will they go, and how much are gamers willing to take?." From the article: "If you plan on picking up an Xbox 360 title this month, then you're probably picking up one with Massive's in-game ads. Titles such as Crackdown, Def Jam: Icon, MLB 2K7, and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 are all part of the Massive network showing off ads from Dell, Intel, Discovery Channel, Intel, NBC, Verizon and even the Navy among others. "

Comments

Getting popular?

[fotbr]

Maybe with marketing. But not with any gamer I've talked to.

None of those games are going to be cheaper to buy because of their ads, which is the only way the gaming community is going to like this. If I can get what would have been a $50 game for $20 because it has ads, I might consider buying the game. But I'm not keen on paying "full" price for a game with ads.

lj post

[Turn-X Alphonse]

May as weell just link to a post I made on Livejournal. It says everything and has screenshots to boot

http://community.livejournal.com/gamers/2152581.ht ml

Re:I dont have a problem

[SeeManRun]

I actually prefer having non existant advertisements. It allows the creators to be more creative with how they have an advertisement for a fake company. Makes it fun to look at the adds because they are creative. I can't remember exactly which games, but I know I have seen some hilarious ones. Duke Nukem comes to mind, but it was so long ago I can't remember. One way to protest this would be to either write software that shuts off the network connection while playing a game (of course single player only) or just to unhook the NIC before playing. I don't imagine there would be enough people to do that to make a difference though.

Re:What's The Problem

[crabpeople]

"We see all kinds of stuff in games that would normally have an ad on it in real life"

So, in real life, ads are everywhere. With no debate as to whether or not this is desireable, you have concluded that the practice should naturally be ported to games.

Hows this for a compromise: Less ads in real life, to bring them down to an ingame level.

 

"Yes it could be very easily overdone and become invasive"

Could be? Thats the entire POINT of advertising!

Re:My favorite is theaters

[MeanderingMind]

That always bothered me as well. Aren't they targetting the wrong demographic? You're telling the people who have just paid $9 to see the film that they should see films in theatres. Which is... where they already are and what they're trying to do. The people who pirate the film aren't likely to be there, they saw it 3 days before it arrived in theatres.

Brought to you by Magnavox, and Pepsi

[Omestes]

Advertising is really beggining to reach the level of absurdity. I can understand the line of reasoning behind putting advertisements on non-cable TV, but this strange trend to put advertisements into content that the consumer already has paid for boggles my mind. Yes, advertising to cover the costs free services makes sense, but when it goes towards a pay service it is nothing but greed and trying to sodomize your customers for more money.

I stopped going to baseball games because our stadium here is so peppered in ads that it distracts from the game (heck, when ESPN or such is broadcasting the game, sometimes they even pause the game for ads on TV). Our local school buses (whats left to them, most kids now being forced to use our shoddy public transportation) have ads on them. You buy a new computer and it is covered with useless services which pretty much amount to the same thing as ads. Hell its beginning to seem that a good portion of online "user" content is nothing but ads. Avertisers are now turning to strange manipulations like sending nice looking women to bars to through our nonchalant comments like "Man, my new copy of MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA makes me steamy and hot!".

What ever happened to quality selling a service?

I really think that ubiquitous advertisement is having bad consequences on people psychologically and sociologically. Advertisements depend on people not using judgment, and encouraging snap judgments based on no information, which, last I checked, is not a desirable trait. Second they further fragment society into little classes. "I'm a Nike person, who likes Coke, and runs Windows!", "Oh yeah? I'm a Reebok person who drinks Mountain Dew, and has a Mac!" Call it brand loyalty or idiocy. Hell I even knew a girl with the Nike swoosh tattooed to her arm (willingly, Nike has nothing to do with it), she didn't understand my laughing at her like it was the most absurd thing I've ever seen. She really thought that "Nike" meant something (not the goddess, the corporate symbol), which is the ultimate goal of these companies.

To get a little postmodern here, advertisements try to manipulate us to live in some realm of arbitrary symbols. They try to manipulate us in all ways except rationally. The whole game is creating a need where none really exists, and this extends beyond individual products, to the whole class of consumerism. We actually beleive, now, that we need various consumer goods to survive, and we need to update these every product revision. Take cell-phones for example, how often have people told you that they couldn't live without them? We don't need consumer goods to survive. We don't need to upgrade them daily.

The new form of ads are even subverting the best way to find quality products, word of mouth. How can you trust anyone when shills are spending millions creating artificial word of mouth? I'll continue blocking all ads online, not watching television, and staying away from sporting events, and boycotting services with obnoxious ads (as opposed to innocuous or clever ones saying what a service actually does).

Yes, you can tell that this whole issue pisses me off.

Re:Brought to you by Magnavox, and Pepsi

[mackertm]

First, if you want to decide not to attend sporting events or watch TV because you find the ads offensive, that's your choice. If enough people felt the same way, I'm sure the people running sports stadium, TV stations, etc. would all start to react. Even on something like cable TV, ads can be considered a necessary evil to help keep the costs you pay directly in check - if all ads were removed from cable TV, I'm pretty sure the bill would go up. Maybe at some point there will be an easy way to let individual consumers make that choice, but that won't happen any time too soon.

You talk about ads having bad consequences on people psychologically and socially... But aren't ads just really a part of culture, our shared experiences? Ads that are done well (or really poorly) tend to work their way into culture and become a part of what we are as a society. I don't think many advertisers simply want to manipulate people into a realm of arbitrary symbols. I think the best advertisers working with the best products can use advertising to help people find products/brands that really work for them.

In any event, blindly railing against all advertising in general is rather pointless. It's here to stay, and I bet if you went back and read op-ed pieces from newspapers 100 years ago there'd be people complaining about how ads have "reached the level of absurdity." Just like every generation of kids is crazy, likes crappy music, and doesn't have the same values we used to have.

If advertisers/media people do something that really pisses off enough people, the advertisers WILL react. I seem to remember a giant outcry about possible ads on MLB bases to promote Spider-Man getting the axe when MLB fans freaked out. But to complain against advertising in general and think it's going to go away is probably a wee bit unrealistic.

Re:Brought to you by Magnavox, and Pepsi

[Omestes]

But aren't ads just really a part of culture, our shared experiences?

Yes and no. They manipulated parts of our culture, existing only for the profit on one small group of people and not the culture as a whole. They are made up, and not organic, and while some might dismiss that as pedantic, I think that authenticity is a very important concept. Most cultural displays exist for a reason good for the culture as a whole, but ads only exist to manipulate people. Advertiser dehumanize us, and use us as mere tools, which is hard to see in a positive light.

Why would they EVER let us have a choice? It's like automatic check-out in supermarkets, they can save money by firing employees and forcing their customers to do their job, with no benefit to the consumer what so ever. We take it because we have to, since there are generally LONGER lines now at check-out. If a discount was passed down to the consumer (ever) I wouldn't mind, but it is forced on us since we don't exist as people, only as nice little "money units" to be manipulated at will.

Perhaps I'm old fashioned and don't like people playing games with me, or using me for their ends with no benefit to me.

It's here to stay, and I bet if you went back and read op-ed pieces from newspapers 100 years ago there'd be people complaining about how ads have "reached the level of absurdity."

And perhaps they were right, and it has just been getting steadily worse since. I know its here to stay, because people are always apathetic cogs who accept what their given, and thanks to advertising this is a psychological fault that we endorse more and more, why would we ever try to bring free-thought as a virtue into our society, you make more money with sheep, it isn't in anyones best interest to raise a critical society. Notice how the same tools used by advertisers are now used by politicians? And that these manipulation gimmicks actually WORK? This is because we are conditioned towards this idiotic reaction.

Sorry for the rant tone, I'm just getting sick of being an instrument for someone else's ends.

Re:Brought to you by Magnavox, and Pepsi

[mackertm]

Why would they EVER let us have a choice? It's like automatic check-out in supermarkets, they can save money by firing employees and forcing their customers to do their job, with no benefit to the consumer what so ever. We take it because we have to, since there are generally LONGER lines now at check-out. If a discount was passed down to the consumer (ever) I wouldn't mind, but it is forced on us since we don't exist as people, only as nice little "money units" to be manipulated at will.

The only comment that I'll make here is that smart businesses might realize they could make more money by giving people a choice. Let's say you've opted not to watch cable TV (or visit certain websites, or whatever) because you don't want to see the ads. If it was a possibility to provide two versions of the product (one without ads and one with) and charge a premium for the one without the ads, both you and the company win. They get another paying customer, you get to enjoy a service you might like without the ads.

Believe me, I'm faaaaaar from a fan of ads ending up EVERYWHERE, particularly when they're often poorly-targeted and unlikely to achieve much of anything. (Such as an ad for the Tyra Banks show that ran on the ESPN Radio channel on XM today. WTF?) Perhaps I'm just more hopeful that smart companies will realize that users might actually embrace useful ads (Google AdWords) or be willing to pay a premium for services that include no ads at all.

"Rising development costs of the Wii"

[Overly Critical Guy]

The article mentions the Wii in that sentence, yet the Wii is by far the cheapest to develop for, by several hundred thousand, and in some cases a million or more, dollars. I'd say the Wii is the least likely to ever get ads in its games. One more reason to avoid the Dreamcast 360 and Rapestation 3 at all costs.

Re:I am going to research if a game has ads

[ShieldW0lf]

I haven't been to the movies in quite a long time. When I do go to the movies, I go see IMAX features.

I allow my daughter to watch commercial free childrens television, for which I pay. She is getting a bit old for the programming, so I'll probably disconnect the cable soon. She has her own computer, and I encourage her to make movies and music of her own with her webcam and microphone. She's too active to sit around mindlessly watching a screen.

I haven't bought a music cd in over 5 years. Instead, I have a collection of instruments and simple recording gear, and I have bi-weekly jams with my friends. My girlfriend listens to underground techno she gets from creative commons sources, which I also enjoy.

I do not buy magazines, and have not in over 5 years.

I do not like commercial sports, I find them boring. Instead, I practice Capoeira with my friends and go rock climbing.

I do confess, I take cabs quite a bit.

Satisfied?

Re:Just like cable TV

[Admiral Ag]

Some of it is just plain undignified.

For example, in Fight Night 3 one of the trainers that you sometimes need to use is the Burger King Mascot. I kid you not, you have that idiotic looking king instead of someone who looks like Eddie Futch or Angelo Dundee. It looks really lame when Marvelous Marvin Hagler is escorted to the ring by a foam headed fast food character. What's next? Sugar Ray Robinson being given advice between rounds by a giant green M&M?

My own feeling is that we should send the Marvelous One himself over to EA to beat some heads.