Slashdot Mirror
HTC Introduces Eye-Tracking 'VR Ad Service' (pcgamer.com)
We all knew this day would come: HTC has introduced a "VR Ad Service" that knows when viewers are actively looking at ads. "Ads that appear in immersive VR environments can not only provide more effective impressions, they can also track whether the users have viewed them or have turned away their gaze. Accordingly, the multiplied effect of effective impressions and verified viewings will bring you higher advertising revenue!" HTC explains. PC Gamer reports: Advertisers will only pay for ads after they've been viewed, according to Business Insider. Some of the formats they will use include loading scenes, 2D and 3D in-app placements, app recommendation banners, and big screen video. This will be an opt-in ad service for developers. HTC notes that by opting in, "all of your free apps would be automatically put on the list which can be used to integrate VR Ads." News of in-game ads coming to VR isn't exactly the sort of thing that will excite gamers. If there's a silver lining here, it's that ads are more likely to be relevant to the viewer's interests over time, at least in theory. "Compared to ordinary ad impressions, ads that are seen by users in a immersive VR environment can not only meet the user's needs by means of precise re-targeting, but can also be detected if they are viewed effectively by users," HTC states. "Therefore, promotion of your applications would have much more effective impression, which not only arouses the attention of potential users and enhance brand image, but further attracts interested users directly to download your apps in the VR environment!"
"If there's a silver lining here" no there isn't any. Advertiser knowing more about us is not a silver lining it is an invasion of our privacy. But then again I am actively trying to block all ads and actively trying to make my browser less track-able, so my opinion on that probably does not count. But boy, if this is not a 1st april news prank, this is not a good new and this came to be faaaaar quicker than I estimated. I thought they would have waited that VR has a stronger hold before making it toxic.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
S01E02.
One of the things they had were these weird cubes people lived in where all the walls and ceiling were basically LCD panels. Occasionally they'd get blasted by advertisements, and when the protagonist closed his eyes or averted his gaze, all the screens would lock down with this red warning that said "RESUME VIEWING" while a high pitched alternating tone filled the room.
Here's one of the scenes in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5eGo1vE41w
I was wondering how long it'd take before some company implemented something exactly like that. Looks like we're already there...
I really think advertisements are a curse upon humanity. Surely HTC and app developers can survive without VR ads -- and, yet, HTC wants to tap in to the same revenue stream which made Google huge. I know companies with shareholders are driven to seek profit almost anywhere within legal limits, but I wish we lived in a world where consideration of the experiences of fellow humans had a higher priority than profit.
Yeah, that was exactly what I thought of. Of course right now they are mostly thinking about ads on loading screens and about product placement: they put a can of Slurm in your VR scene, and get paid if your eyes linger long enough on that can. But I can also imagine how tempting it must be to resume the advertising arms race, and require viewing of the ad. Or, since the revenue stream requires you to at least glance at the ad, make it as obnoxious as possible: think bouncing buttons and flashing colors.
Because that's all this is: an arms race. Companies aren't magically going to increase their advertising budgets; they might spend more on one particular platform if it proves to be more effective, but it most likely means they are spending less elsewhere. And can we please kill this lie about "targeted, engaging" ads? No one wants ads when they interrupt or interfere with the viewing experience. Not even when it's a single, relevant ad, let alone the customary scattershot of crap this will inevitably devolve into.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
While cheapy smartphone games may be so plentiful and cheap that they can be used for cannon fodder, VR games are still relatively few in number and costly. Nobody is going to pay for $60 game to get blasted by ads. If the games were free, people would put up with it but VR games are costly to develop and ads easily spoil any type of emotional environment they work at constructing. I don't foresee this getting any traction.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Not eye-tracking ads, that's totally plausible. The idea that you're not going to have to pay for ad impressions unless someone looks at your ad is the joke. They might give you some eye-tracking information if someone looks at your ad, though, and maybe you'll pay more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Dear advertising customers. Yes, you out there who fall for the lie that ad companies tell you. That you can actually "engage" or otherwise get anyone interested in your ad by making it topical, or making it about something the person is actually interested in. The sad truth is that your ad can be as topical and engaging as could be about something I want and still it would be considered a nuisance. Allow me to inform you why.
Take YouTube. You know, that online TV-Replacement. Where I, as a user, can decide that "hey, I want to see a video". Now, let's imagine I want to see a video of my favorite music band. I type in the name of the band and the name of the song, expecting to watch the video to said song.
Now you could come with the most on-topic ad one could imagine: Imagine you're a music promoter and you'd want to promote a gig of that band in my home town. It does not get any more on-topic, engaging and interesting to the customer than this. And STILL I would not even see what you are promoting but rather annoyed click on the 5 second ticker that ticks down to "skip". Because at that very moment, my expectation and my "want" was to see that video. Not your ad, not anything else, I want that video. Anything that stands between me and that video is a nuisance, distraction and generally something I do NOT want.
You see the problem? When people are actively trying to get something specific, anything that blocks their access to it is seen as an interruption and nuisance that they want to get rid of. No matter what it is.
What does work a lot better is when people watch some videos of one of their YouTube favorites and you can get them to endorse your product, especially if they have the skill to weave that in an interesting way into their presentation. Because more often than not they watch the channel for the person and his or her presenting style, not exclusively for the content presented, so the person they like presenting your product in an engaging way can actually work. Provided your product is in any way sensibly connected with the show at hand.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do companies insist that things like this... are somehow a service?
serv.ice: noun:
1. the action of helping someone.
2. a system supplying a public need such as transport, communications, or utilities such as electricity and water.
Their helping the Advertisers lol. All the while trying to convince the end user they are being served ..somehow..con artist do what they do best believe their own lies lol
Jack of all trades,master of none