Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free 'Ad-Backed' Games the Future?

Posted by Zonk on from the i-think-signs-point-to-yes dept.

MacarooMac writes "EA Games recently announced they are to release a free online version of their PC game 'Battlefield Heroes', supported by in game adverts and micro payments. EA hopes the model of a free game as a download that is supported by advertising could be applied to other franchises it owns. For this particular title, no adverts will appear in the game itself due to incompatibility with the game's fictional world. Instead, adverts will appear on the website and the 'front-end' of the game. But many other titles can and do provide for product placement during game play itself. How long before improvements in video graphics, combined with dynamic, and perhaps even interactive in-game advertising, start to generate revenue increases that enable publishers to substantially reduce the price of their games?" Already a very common model for Eastern online titles, and being adapted here in the states by a number of companies.

4 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. That'll be the day I stop playing games by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or at least those games.

    Traditional advertising routes are failing because people:

    1. Hate ads
    2. Stop noticing them after a while
    3. See them absolutely bloody everywhere.

    Just because I can tune them out doesn't mean I want to, and I'd rather pay for the game, thanks. Actually, I wouldn't mind paying for tv with no ads too. It's not like the advertisers get much "value" from my watching anyway. I drink english ale and I get excited about a new NAS, not the sort of thing you see on tv that much...

    1. Re:That'll be the day I stop playing games by phobos13013 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, this is exactly my rationale for why I *would* play them!

      There is a statistic out there that the average person sees about 300 ads per day. In so doing, I would imagine (or at least I have...) most people have learned to tune the ads out. I can easily play a game and ignore the marketing. I do play online games where this occurs anyway already! So if marketing firms want to subsidize my ability to play full games for free. Sign me up, and don't be surprised if you don't get a bump in revenue because of it!

      --
      ...and it should be known by now
  2. Development costs by ddrichardson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally I think this is a terrible model for games to develop as a medium, yet it does not surprise me the EA would promote it. Having worked in game retail in the past, it's not a secret that (in the UK at least) EA's backbone is in the sportsgames with annual updates.

    Advertisers are more likely to but space in, say Fifa '09 which will have much lower development costs than a new concept and such a model may even off set the development cost.

    --
    A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  3. Mistakes by geekboxjockey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems they decided to go with characters that look like clear ripoffs of TF2's new look.... See the picture at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/technology/21game.html?ref=technology.

    EA is taking 2 steps that I completely disagree with:

    -Ripping off other games and making weaker versions of something that has already been successful for another company. Great, you go make a buck, let other companies steer the course of gaming and out(last/earn) you...

    -Taking a problematic issue with current games such as MMORPGs, and making it a new feature. That is, if you aren't good enough you spend money and then you are at least a little better in some respects. (Gold farming in WoW etc..) Forget a game that pits raw skill vs skill, let people pay if they suck, no thank you... I prefer games where being good counts for something. Sure it will be fun to knock around the idiots who spent $100... It's not a true skill based competition, which is the fundamental root of any good multi-player game.