Slashdot Mirror
In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 2012
GamesIndustry.biz reports on comments from analyst firm Parks Associates on the bright future for game advertisements. General advertising for games is expected to skyrocket in the next few years, reaching some $2 billion by the year 2012. Additionally in-game advertising, which ran about $55 million last year, is expected to reach $800 Million in the same year. "'Advertising in electronic games had an average monthly household expenditure of less than 50 cents in 2006, while broadcast TV was at $37, meaning advertisers are not using the gaming medium to its full potential,' said Yuanzhe Cai, Parks Associates' director of broadband and gaming. 'If executed correctly, game advertising can provide a win-win solution for advertisers, developers and publishers, console manufacturers, game portals, and gamers.'"
I've never seen a night elf drinking a Coke.
I will not play any game with in-game advertising, especially if it doesn't lower the cost. I encourage everyone to follow me.
Well done in game ads are more effective and less distracting. The next step is for them to lower the price of the games, or give better support/updates/content because of advertising revenue.
Yeah, I know I'm a bit crazy with that last part, it would just be nice to see a bit more benefit trickle down to the consumer.
You mad
There needs to be a law that makes game companies put right on the back on their box in bold print at size 12pt if the game has in game advertising. If a game has in game advertising I won't buy it unless it makes sense (as in billboards when driving vs. the sky being turned into one big brand image).
Money has to come from somewhere. If developers can earn money by selling advertising, it means they will be able to spend more time polishing up their projects at the end of the development cycle instead of having to push the product out the door early to start getting money from sales.
Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games. Will some publishers abuse advertising for quick profit? Of course. But don't come out with something like BOYCOTT ALL GAMES WITH ADVERTISING KEKEKEKEKEKEKE because you don't understand that developers need money in order to do what they love.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
Ho How does one "especially not play" a game?
Yes, money has to come from somewhere. I am willing to pay what it takes for a game worth playing but I don't want silly advertisement in it. There are already way too much ads I can't avoid in daily life, I'm not interested in seeing more while I play video games. So no, I won't buy games with advertising if I can avoid it.
"'Advertising in electronic games had an average monthly household expenditure of less than 50 cents in 2006, while broadcast TV was at $37, meaning advertisers are not using the gaming medium to its full potential,' said Yuanzhe Cai
Jeez, you think? Maybe it's because there are many, many more poeple watching TV than playing video games. In fact, I think that number is not too far off from it's appropriate scale.
Let's run some figures... Gaming age is about 15 to 35. Lifespan is about 70 years, and we start watching TV about age 5 now. Not many girls, and some boys aren't interested in gaming -at all-, and let's suppose that 50% of the people in that age range, but there is hardly anyone that doesn't watch TV.
So if we pull 2 average people from each year from 5 to 70, we have approximately 130 tv watchers, and 20 gamers. So the ratio is 6.5 to 1 or so. So the $.50 should be more like $5.50 or so. The article makes it sound like it should be up at $37 per person.
In short: There's a ton of spin on this using numbers that don't -mean- anything in the current context.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I think overall it will mean more rushed titles.
You've got to get that game out the door so you can get a new batch of advertisers for your next game.
Look at what advertising has done for television. It used to be one company would fund a show entirely and they might break from the show once or twice an hour to tell you about that one product(how do you think soap operas got their name?)
Now you're lucky if you get 30 minutes of showtime in an hour block and even during the shows they feel the need to have advertisements splash across the screen with their own sound effects sometimes covering up crucial images or dialogue.
Advertising in games might not sound that bad now but once they get a taste they will just try and saturate games more and more. How long do you think until they have 20 minutes of previews before you can play like they do for movies?
IOU one (1) signature
It depends on the game. If I was playing a game set in modern society, like GTA, and I see a Coke billboard over a street, I wouldn't think anything of it. But if I ever have to give my Final Fantasy characters "coke potions" or something I will stab someone.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
How about this novel concept: Make a killer game, and sell a lot of copies!
When was the last time Zelda or Mario needed Nike/Coke/Dodge ads to make money? I'm with the parent, screw'em. I don't want them, and I don't need them. There are plenty of great games to play that don't make me feel dirty or insulted. So many recent games lost sales from me and my circle for in-game ads, such as Crackdown earlier this year. I enjoyed the demo, but after a single distraction (large dodge truck ad) I was done. Battlefield 2142 is another fine example, might as well re-name the sucker adware42, and it has no business on my PC.
If developers want to see my money, all they have to do is a make a great game, and leave all that "sponsored by" crap in the splash screen or on the box. You can't even begin to imagine my disappointment in last weeks news with Quake:ET, a game I've been following for years...
The bottom line is, if your development cost are so high that you have to start selling ad space in your game world, then maybe it's time you evaluate your development processes, and the game in question; for something has gone horribly wrong.
-Buddy of DoQ
Give me a break. People are fleeing/blocking/ignoring as best as possible the bulk of advertisements
thrown at them. Pundits have been predicting a shake-up in the video game industry for a while now.
Straw? Camel? Back?
We'll see...
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
In Elder Scrolls 5, you'll be able to buy Coke and Pepsi alongside "Cheap Wine," mead, and other RPG beverages. And one of the best items will be the Under-Armour Shirt of Strength.
Halo 4 will have Cheef trade in his warthog for a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, and have him exlaim various crap while driving such as "man, the handling on this thing is amazing!"
Final Fantasy XIV will replace every potion with various flavors of Vitamin Water, and every Esper will be replaced by LeBron James and Greg Oden and each summon will be followed by a screen saying "This summon was brought to you by NBA on TNT Thursdays."
While Forza Motorsport 3 is loading a track, a teaser of Apocalypto will play. If the Nürburgring is being loaded, it will play the full trailer and possibly the "making of" video.
I can't wait.
I like basketball!!1!
I remember when Seinfeld created the concept of product placement on TV - he would open up the cabinet and pull out a box of Cheerios and eat some. It's much more realistic...it's something we would do. We wouldn't pull out a box of Churrios. If done right, in-game advertizing can actually make a game more realistic...if, for example, you pass by a movie theater and see real movies advertized, or go up to a vending machine and see real products, or drive past a McDonalds. So I'm all for it, if they do it right.
Great, so how long till I see adds for Viagra while I play Forza Motorsports 2?
Without the money coming from in-game advertising...you may not have the chance to play the game anyway. The extra finances gained through advertising can reduce the risk factor in making a videogame. If companies can make more of a return on cash cow games perhaps they'll have money to make more innovative or obscure (financial risky) videogames.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
Because of course there are ways to make it work, once the stupid stuff has been flushed out. And the vast majority of Americans have enjoyed innumerable hours of entertainment provided mostly free to them because of the availability of advertising money.
Will said advertising ever work in a deep high-fantasy setting? Maybe not. But if Blue Nile wanted to fund a jewelery store, I wouldn't mind.
agreed 100%. Nor will I ever put adverts in my own games. I haven't even tried the demo of BF2142, despite loving BF2, because its widely known to be full of ads.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
The problem is making the ads actually fit into the game. For instance, in Super Monkey Ball, the bananas have Dole stickers on them. Every single one of them. You don't even notice it all the time, and it's kind of funny to see them on there. It doesn't really detract from the game in any way. However, working ads into games like Mario or Zelda would probably be impossible without it looking like blatant advertising. Other games might do very well. ExciteTruck could easily have trucks with real company logos on them. Just as Need For Speed has always had real cars. I don't think this kind of thing detracts from the games. It isn't actually blatant advertising, but does promote that "brand awareness" concept that advertisers are always looking for.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
There is some advertising that I want. Like if I buy NHL 200# I do not mind seeing the various Koho, CCM, Bauer, ect. Its part of making it real. I want to see Tim Hortons ads on the sides fo the rink. I want to see ESPN covering the game. Its all in adding the "real" feel to the game and making it more fun.
But also should we be warned now of in game ads. Should there be a new rating that tells if a game has ads in it. There are some that want none of it and will never buy a game that has in game ads, though I am guessing only a few. How would a consumer be able to make choices on ads in game and would they be able to return it if they disapproved of in game ads?
Master chief looking like some of those European soccer uniforms, this Mortal Kombat fatality is brought to you by AT+T, Or a Sims censoring of the in bed action with an advirtisment for trojans is taking it to far.
When I was your age we didn't have music file sharing utilities. We had to go out to a store and shoplift the CD.
...you don't understand that developers need money in order to do what they love. Right, they do need money. That's why they SELL GAMES. Now they're trying to sell games AND sell advertising, cashing in twice on the same thing. Their customers pay for the game, they don't want to pay for the game and the commercials. If the games were discounted or free, sure, advertising might work as a business model. So far, it doesn't look like that's where the game publishers that want to use in-game advertising are going. It's been quite blatantly a quick-cash-in move, which we gamers tend to hate, and rightfully so.In-game advertising will not result in any of the following:
-Cheaper games
-Better games
-Greater adherence to release schedules
It will result in the following:
-Same prices of games
-Same quality of games
-Same adherence to release schedules
-Annoying in-game advertisments
That's all there is to it.
I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
I find it difficult to believe anyone can predict anything in the computer industry five years out. Add to the equation trying to understand what a set of people (gamers) will accept? That all adds up to a wild, whack-ass guess in my book.
You're right. That's why I have to pay $60 for games now opposed to the $50 five years ago.
You can't just throw money at a programming project to make it be done faster; videogames will still take just as long (if not longer in some cases) to complete as they always do. No amount of money can make a game be finished faster. I'd rather a game be delayed a few months and end up great than see it be released too early and require patches and still be buggy as hell *coughBattlefield2cough*...
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
A new rating? Maybe a descriptor but not a rating. We already have idiots who are confused by a "mature" or can't be bothered to even look.
The fact is advertising is going to be in games. Unless of course we all just stop buying games... yeah not going to happen. To many people buy sports games from EA for that to happen.
The issue is, advertisers want to put product adds in games, product adds hurt the game unless you have a current day setting, even then its very iffy. The best game ads are innocuous and they promote a brand, not a single product. If I'm walking through a city on an earth that was destroyed in 2014 and see a faded and burnt billboard sitting at and angle half on the ground with an advert for an xbox 1080, I'm not really going to mind, it doesn't look out of place and it fits the time period. If the billboard is clean, bright and shiny.... im gonna be pissed. Who the hell keeps the billboards clean and up to date, don't they have better things to do like scavenging for food?
If I'm traveling between worlds in a space game set in 2231 and I go near a large space station orbiting a heavily populated world (Think Coruscant)and see a coke advert that says "Coke Classic, for that turn of the millennium taste". I wouldn't mind, heck I might even grin a little.
The problem is this, what dev has ever said "you want an advert in out game? Then these are the rules you follow, go talk to your add agency then let us look and we will approve it." If they really want to get that advert near your target audience, then they will do it.
IN game advertising doesn't have to be stupid and forceful. The problem is, that is how it is typically done right now.
You mad
If they start putting ads into games I'm not going to buy anymore.
In-game advertising works in a variety of genres, while it doesn't in others. It is all about whether it fits in with the game or not. In some cases, I wish there was more in-game advertising -- take MLB2K7 for example. All the stadiums have advertising for just a couple companies (including the developer and Progressive auto insurance). I would much rather see authentic ads (such as WB Mason and the big Bud Light ad at Yankee Stadium) than I would ads for the developer or one or two companies that paid for the spots.
I think a game like Forza has the right amount of advertising -- the advertisements are varied enough that you don't get sick of seeing a particular one, and racing is notorious for putting some sort of ad or label on every single spot they can. I love listening to the interviews with the racers: "The DuPont Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS..."
That being said, advertisements can really suspend your immersion in a game when they don't fit. If you're in a fantasy setting and see an ad for Coca Cola, your immersion is lost and it really detracts from the game. If you're in a FPS and you're in an urban setting, then maybe a few billboards would add to the realism -- but if every wall is plastered with ads then it takes away from the realism and the game suffers.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
At least when you buy a new game with advertising, you KNOW you are going to have ads.
I paid $49.99 for Counter-Strike something like 7 years ago, and now Valve forces me to look at ads if I want to play my game. I hope someone files a class action lawsuit and at least makes sure I get the advertising revenue, not some greedy law breaking company.
In-game advertising is dangerous reality that all gamers need to face. Titles with advertising are not any cheaper of feature-full than titles without it, its all about increasing profits and don't let marketing promises of 'extra features' or 'extended support' confuse you. Its all about extra profit.
In the world where in-game advertising become commonplace you will see such undesirable things as mandatory minimum loading times, mandatory internet connection (even in single player games) in order to load advertising clips, visual field pollution and distractions. Ads are attention-grabbing by definition, so don't fool yourself into thinking that it won't that bad. We will have full-screen video clips in no time.
Advertising is really expensive to you as a viewer - it takes *your* precious time that you have to spend on leisure activities. It is not ' just little bit of your time' it's A LOT of precious little time you have reserved for relaxing and playing games. It will be just like TV - where it is all crap and choke-full with 'sponsor messages'. All games will be changed to fit ads, just like TV where all programming is geared to fit frequent advertisement interruptions.
Real danger of in-game advertising is that game companies no longer in the business of making games, they are now in the business of selling advertisements and gamers no longer customers but product instead. As a result game studios will no longer be about making games but about showing most adds to most people.
>>>Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games.
This is such uninformed BS. Budgets, deadlines and industry standards will not change - from pure profit-generating point of view (only view that matters) customers already willing to accept low-quality products and there is no payoff in spending more on increased quality.
In-game advertising is about generating sustained revenue and increasing profits. It is *not* about making better games.
"Just as Need For Speed has always had real cars"
...
One problem I see with this alone is that car manufacturers are not willing to put their car in a game if it has realistic/any damage modelling
I'm not saying NFS is like that, I haven't played them in ages...
"Without the money coming from in-game advertising...you may not have the chance to play the game anyway."
... see a pattern here?
Then so what? What would we miss if we never knew they existed?
That's the same BS reason said about record companies.. If they didn't exist there wouldn't be any music!! of course there would be bloody music we just wouldn't be forced to put up with the same re-mixed crap over and over and over and over again!
I would LOVE the games industry to collapse again like it did in the 80's (some people suggest it's just about to) and we'd get back to proper fun games that were not cash cows and there wouldn't be any finance for financially risky games to exist in the first place.
I don't need 20 million reiterations of pacman! (80's)
I don't need 20 million reitterations of bejeweled (2000's)
What if the advertising made the game free, not just lowered the cost?
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
Its a shame... damage modelling is something I really love...
:)
nothing more amusing than causing a 20 car pile up on the raceway when you are bored
then again maybe that's just me and my sick sense of humour
I love hockey-stick revenue plans.
So why are advertisers so eager to pay for advertising in a game that's not finished yet?
They don't. That's what episodic games and MMOs are for.
I agree with your argument, good man.
However, something just came up in my mind.
If the income from a game comes from in-game advertising more than from sales, doesn't that diminish the problem of profit loss due to piracy?
I mean, unless they are removed with cracking, downloaded games will still have these adverts, won't they?
I remember hearing about that with NFS. One car company (Ferrari I think) wouldn't let them put their cars in the game if they had damage modelling, so they didn't have it, I think this was NFS3. NFS4 had damaging, but no Ferrari's. Personally, I think the driving games are a lot better if they have the damage simulation, because it stops opponents, cpu or otherwise, from ramming into you to run you off the track, and suffering no consequences.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
That's the same BS reason said about record companies.. If they didn't exist there wouldn't be any music!! of course there would be bloody music we just wouldn't be forced to put up with the same re-mixed crap over and over and over and over again!
We're missing a lot of things that "don't exist." The real BS here is that without some kind of money it's damn hard to get your game/music out there. Can you front the money for a recording studio session? Do you even know how much they charge an hour?? I'm as tired as you are of the same old shit that is fed to us by the mega corps, but if an indie developer/band needs some kind of sponsor in order to deliver true entertainment, i'm all for it.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
Regarding Battlefield 2142: I've never found the in game advertising to be problematic, or even obtrusive. The only thing I've seen it used for so far is tasteful advertising for the expansion pack (by showcasing the new EU and PAC vehicles) or Intel CPU advertising, which while a little more out of place, is sometimes humorous ("Core 2 Duo: Still good after 139 years" for instance), doesn't detract from the game play either. A lot of people seem to hate on in-game adds, but as long as they're well done, and sit in the background (the way advertising should be), they aren't a big deal.
In game adverstising can add to a games atmosphere. Actual Pepsi/Coke machines could make the game seem more "real". The problem is developers don't do this at all. Example 1: Battlefield 2142. Why the hell are there billboards for Intel Processors in the fucking countryside of France?
"We're missing a lot of things that "don't exist." "
Yeah we'd all love a space elevator.
"The real BS here is that without some kind of money it's damn hard to get your game/music out there."
Easy answer number one? EA goes bankrupt... playing field is suddenly a lot more open. The best games dont have the best graphics, and the majority of the all time greatest were made in peoples bedrooms.
"Can you front the money for a recording studio session? Do you even know how much they charge an hour?? "
No and I wouldn't care... I'd go see them at a local concert, and for the huge international bands? oh wait, there wouldn't be any because there would be no money to market them.
So what happens? do you think the music will dry up? Music is ART... its got absolutely jack shit to do with making money. Music has been made for thousands of years and only in the last 100 or so have people and their corporations tried to control it.
I'm sure it would be harder for companies to pay people not to make music its a natural human expression!
"I'm as tired as you are of the same old shit that is fed to us by the mega corps, but if an indie developer/band needs some kind of sponsor in order to deliver true entertainment, i'm all for it."
In all of this I actually agree with you here, we do need to support the indies but blanket advertising is no better than the mafiaa's loyalties. The developers will see none of the money from this and game prices will certainly not go down. Advertising would only become interested when the game went gold and from then till its death it would be numbers numbers numbers... and the quality of advertising will depend on the popularity of the game. Can you imagine a ww2 hanger with 'get you c@lis here' ?
If the indies really ever had a voice then most people reading this would know about http://www.gametunnel.com/ and would be able to give the money directly to the artists.
As long as corporations such as E.A and vivendi exist they will continue to bite directly into the consumers wallet and give NOTHING back in return to the developers.
The podcast they did relating to the comic is hilarious as well.
If the ads are appropriate for the setting the game is in, then they become part of the environment of the game. For example, seeing real-life ads on billboards in a game like Grand Theft Auto does not detract from the game at all. It takes place in a modern day city, and you would expect to see such billboards if you were really there. However, placing things like this in a futuristic or fantasy game would destroy it.
Heres a recent rough sell list put together by NPD group:
1. Nancy Drew: The White Wolf Of Icicle Creek - Her Interactive
2. The Sims 2 H&M Fashion Stuff - Electronic Arts
3. World Of Warcraft - Blizzard
4. World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade - Blizzard
5. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars - Electronic Arts
6. Starcraft: Battle Chest - Blizzard
7. The Sims 2 Seasons - Electronic Arts
8. Battlefield 2142 - Electronic Arts
9. The Sims 2 Deluxe - Electronic Arts
10. Warcraft: Battle Chest - Blizzard
Nancy Drew leads the pack, with the Sims taking 3 spots and fan favorite Blizzard taking 4. Even though WOW is super popular with everyone, The Sims Fashion Stuff trumps it and Nancy Drew beat that. I think its time to wake up and smell your gender stereotyping. When all's said and done though you're right that both you and the article are just bsing around. Expected to top 2 billion by 2012? I think someone put in a late night with Excel and the analyst's secret weapon: the best fit line.
Please stop spreading this lie. Most advertising is a shell game that pays for nothing. Instead, we're paying twice over, once in time attention to watch/avoid the ad and second in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad. And please, no nonsense about "well I'm not paying twice"; on average you are.
In game advertising is merely way to fraudulently hide from the game purchaser the true price of the game. It should be illegal.
Your hand waving about how it will improve the quality of the game is nonsense considering how much advertising "improves" TV.
So yes, BOYCOTT ALL GAMES WITH ADVERTISING, and starve the marketing parasites of as much oxygen as possible.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
In fact I barely notice, I've played a few games with ingame adds for a while but I can't tell you about a single one that I remember having seen. I don't really mind if it benefits me like papers/magazines that are free because they are advert funded - of course after so many years of adverts I manage to mentally block almost everything to the point that you can ask me about an add on the previous page in a magazine and I won't have seen it so I guess it's easy for me not to care.
Yeah money has to come from somewhere, and I really don't care if you have shittier graphics or music in a game if it means the benefit of having no advertising. I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same... especially considering that you can make PS2 quality games with less money nowadays.
>it means they will be able to spend more time polishing up their projects at the end of the development cycle
oh look a young one. how cute, how innocent
Oh Please, Seinfeld didn't create anything save for mediocre comedy. In Program advertising goes back decades before Seinfeld was even born. It was well known that only Philip Morris cigarettes were smoked on the I Love Lucy show. So much so, that the writers were banned from using the word "Lucky" in any scripts. Father Knows Best only ate General Foods.
Before that it was incredibly routine to have products featured in various radio programs.
And before that plays were known to work in various forms of advertising into the actual production. To say Seinfeld created the concept of product placement is plain insulting and borderline stupid.