• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Latest News

Reactions to In-Game Advertising

by Chris Remo, Nov 30, 2005 1:00pm PST
Related Topics – Sony, In-game Advertising

Gamasutra's latest Question of the Week deals with the growing trends of in-game advertising. As usual, the site receives comments from varied industry professionals as well as general readers. As one might expect, the general sentiment is that it is inevitable that in-game ads will become more prevalent as time goes on. One response points out, "Any time money can be extracted from a form of media, it will be." A few responses point out that in-game ads will help secure elusive funding, some condemn the presence of advertising in games altogether, but in general the concensus seems to be that considering such ads are surely only going to become more common, the most important thing is ensuring that each advertising model fits the game in which it is being used. Microsoft's Daniel Drew notes the rapidly rising costs associated with game development, surmising that many publishers may not want or be able to fund certain projects without alternative revenue schemes. "I think it will be especially important for independent developers - just as it is for websites - where selling advertising space may well be their ONLY source of funding," he states. On the other end of the spectrum, Paul Garceau of New Dawn Productions says, "Advertising should be kept outside of the video game and off the game machines. Video games are expressly rooted in entertainment, and marketing is not part of what a video game ought to be. I do not want my hard earned cash wasted on a marketing campaign that I have absolutely no desire to be exposed to." Entelepon's Ryan Bailey warns against developers becoming "very susceptible to changes that are requested by advertisers, or that encourage advertising, as has happened with TV and newspapers." In that vein, Creat Studio's Dimage Sapelkin points out that realistic settings are much more conducive to ads than other settings, and wonders if that may indirectly influence where games take place. One anonymous response is more optomistic, focusing on various potential positive aspects of in-game ads:

Yes, it provides additional funding - defraying marketing expenses, maximizing publisher profit, and creating additional incentive for development of new games. Every game is unique and needs to be treated uniquely, so marketers that create customized ads for individual games that enhance a game's alternate reality will actually make games better. Taking an ad formula and applying it across categories and brands is not a good idea.
One frequently cited benefit of ads is that it may drive game prices down as development costs are alleviated. I'm not so sure about that, though. At this point we've already made the next-gen leap to $60 for a standard console game (I assume Sony and Nintendo will follow suit for major third-party releases, as price points tend to be pretty standard across the industry), and it's hard to imagine publishers actually going back on that.




Comments

32 Threads* | 69 Comments

















  • What about this angle? This provides many games today an opportunity for ongoing revenue which they otherwise might not have. Don't read this as a vote of support for in-game advertising from me, because it's certainly not. But I think this possibility could have a profound impact on publisher and studio funding.

    The interesting thing is, though, that it still stratifies the game industry even further, making the rich richer and the poor, well, still poor. Think of it this way: The better the game you make, the more copies (read: eyeballs) that will be in play and the longer play time it will have. Both of these things lead to more advertising impressions and theoretically more advertising revenue. Hence, the better the game, the more revenue, both from initial sales and from ongoing advertising.






  • Never put any faith in the statement that end-product prices will go down as a result of some practice elsewhere in the chain of production.

    For example, the BSA and its member companies like to remind us annually that software prices are so high because of rampant piracy and the revenue lost through such practices. However, where are the higher game prices? All on consoles, where piracy is anything but rampant. The barrier to entry for piracy on most consoles is fairly high for most people, so it just doesn't happen as often as it does with PC gaming where cracks and duplication software make the job easy. So which platform has the lower per unit costs for games? The one that suffers less piracy.

    Same for advertising. A number of games have sported it already. Have any of those games been any cheaper as a result? Not in the least.

    The ultimate example of madness, however, is the console release of America's Army, a game that is in and of itself one huge piece of advertising created with taxpayer money. The PC version has been free all this time, so you can say, "Okay, that makes sense. I'm getting something for sitting here an playing an indoctrination game." But the console version? $50. $50 for one continuous advertisement. Now, I don't know how much tax money went into development of the console version - maybe none - so perhaps the pricing reflects less dependence on the Army's marketing/recruitment expenditures. Anyone know?

    One thing is consistent, however. Defraying costs by increasing incoming revenue pre-unit sale has no history of reducing the cost to consumers. Producers are more than happy to continue milking us while making more money on the back end, and there is no reason to believe that will ever change.


  • The ads in Chaos Theory really, really sucked. Every second computer had a massive scrolling Brothers in Arms screensaver, there were Brothers in Arms posters in a few rooms, and a couple of guards even chatted about playing BIA. Result? I will *never* play Brothers in Arms now, and my Chaos Theory experience went from "totally amazing, excellent super cool game" to "really fantastic, shame about the crappy advertising".

    The best solution is no ads. If that can't be done, then they should be subtle, seamless and enhance the game, if possible. It should never be the equivalent of a popup web ad.