While I agree change needs to occur. there is no easy solution to health care. If it was as easy as saying scrap IP, I would be all for it, unfortunately the world is far more complex.
I agree completely, but as far as regulation goes, its amazing how fast the government will crack down on cigarette advertising, a product you choose to purchase that can, and probably will, kill you. However, they can't seem to regulate price gouging and underhanded marketing on necessary medications that are integral to keeping you alive. Strong lobbys present, no doubt about it. The wheels of government turn slowly when the cogs are jammed with money.
I majored in Marketing, with a minor in Journalism, so I am a bit familiar with the insane sums of money that companies will spend to "polish a turd" as it were. Although I don't work with marketing professionally (pushing numbers wasn't my thing, and to work as a creative in the field really requires a Graphic Design or English/Communications degree - thanks a bunch to my professors for letting me in on that little secret), I was hoping some fellow/.'ers might.
This ties back to an article earlier today, about in-game advertising and how much money developers get paid to force advertisements on consumers (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/08/30/1618218), many times through underhanded tactics such as longer loading screens filled with adverts. Call it naive, but wouldn't it simply be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul on something like this?
Development costs time more than any other resource. There would be infinite time for development if money were no factor (Duke Nukem Forever, well, bad example, how about Diablo III) or if you didn't have to release a game within its commonly expected demand window (NHL, Madden). Wouldn't it just be easier to take additional income made from advertisers, and simply push that money into the marketing cycle for the game itself? I would think that by the time the suits up in the office at any major gaming house go looking for in-game advertising sponsors, the game is 80-90% complete. On that thought, they aren't going to take the profit and put it back into development on what may well be a sub-par game, thereby delaying its release (especially if its something that they know is already terrible). Instead, its easier to fool Joe Public by bombarding them with commercials on every major network, buying magazine and internet ad space, retailer product placement preference, etc. GameSpot is in bed with everyone on things like this.
It seems like a vicious cycle, taking money from advertisers for annoying in-game ads, then using it to punish me with a Fight Night Round 4 commercial every 15 minutes on any given network, just to have me buy the game and get punished with more ads. Many of the stories lately point to gaming being built on an economy of trading ad time, no longer on installed console units or game sales. Anyone here have any familiarity with how the marketing practice works at an actual publisher? Its a sad state if this is what gaming has actually become. Id still take something like the Might and Magic series, which short of an ad or two in a handful of industry mags became popular via word of mouth, over terribly marketing shovel-ware bullshit any day of the week. Wow, that turned into a rant. My fault, just got back from the dentist, and the office prior to that.
--- This post sponsored by Batman: Arkham Asylum, featuring the new "FreeFlow Combat System" for ultimate control!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely, but as far as regulation goes, its amazing how fast the government will crack down on cigarette advertising, a product you choose to purchase that can, and probably will, kill you. However, they can't seem to regulate price gouging and underhanded marketing on necessary medications that are integral to keeping you alive. Strong lobbys present, no doubt about it. The wheels of government turn slowly when the cogs are jammed with money.
I majored in Marketing, with a minor in Journalism, so I am a bit familiar with the insane sums of money that companies will spend to "polish a turd" as it were. Although I don't work with marketing professionally (pushing numbers wasn't my thing, and to work as a creative in the field really requires a Graphic Design or English/Communications degree - thanks a bunch to my professors for letting me in on that little secret), I was hoping some fellow /.'ers might.
This ties back to an article earlier today, about in-game advertising and how much money developers get paid to force advertisements on consumers (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/08/30/1618218), many times through underhanded tactics such as longer loading screens filled with adverts. Call it naive, but wouldn't it simply be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul on something like this?
Development costs time more than any other resource. There would be infinite time for development if money were no factor (Duke Nukem Forever, well, bad example, how about Diablo III) or if you didn't have to release a game within its commonly expected demand window (NHL, Madden). Wouldn't it just be easier to take additional income made from advertisers, and simply push that money into the marketing cycle for the game itself? I would think that by the time the suits up in the office at any major gaming house go looking for in-game advertising sponsors, the game is 80-90% complete. On that thought, they aren't going to take the profit and put it back into development on what may well be a sub-par game, thereby delaying its release (especially if its something that they know is already terrible). Instead, its easier to fool Joe Public by bombarding them with commercials on every major network, buying magazine and internet ad space, retailer product placement preference, etc. GameSpot is in bed with everyone on things like this.
It seems like a vicious cycle, taking money from advertisers for annoying in-game ads, then using it to punish me with a Fight Night Round 4 commercial every 15 minutes on any given network, just to have me buy the game and get punished with more ads. Many of the stories lately point to gaming being built on an economy of trading ad time, no longer on installed console units or game sales. Anyone here have any familiarity with how the marketing practice works at an actual publisher? Its a sad state if this is what gaming has actually become. Id still take something like the Might and Magic series, which short of an ad or two in a handful of industry mags became popular via word of mouth, over terribly marketing shovel-ware bullshit any day of the week. Wow, that turned into a rant. My fault, just got back from the dentist, and the office prior to that.
--- This post sponsored by Batman: Arkham Asylum, featuring the new "FreeFlow Combat System" for ultimate control!
Trip Hawkins cheers as a typo makes 3DO relevant again for the first time in 15 years.