Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Electronic Arts 'Scores' With Product Placement 59

Posted by simoniker from the or-not dept.
Thanks to the San Francisco Business Times for its article discussing Electronic Arts' increasing use of product placement in its videogames. The article explains: "In EA's games, basketball players wear Adidas or Nike and run past a McDonald's banner on the court; Old Spice deodorant highlights football college players of the game; a snowboarder swooshes past Honda Motor Co.'s newest vehicle, the Element." It's also pointed out that "a six-figure deal with an advertiser defrays some of the costs of game development, which can run up to $10 million in the industry", but it's claimed: "Video-game makers said they try to take care when incorporating products in games, not wanting to overwhelm game players with product spots."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electronic Arts 'Scores' With Product Placement More

Electronic Arts 'Scores' With Product Placement

Comments Filter:

  • Arrr, matey. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @04:53AM (#8235477)
    Personally, I feel violated when I see advertisements(product placements, whatever) in movies or games. I certainly wouldn't pay to see or play a game or movies with ads in it. Them saying "we don't wan to overwhelm people" is just another clue that companies would jump itno advertising on everything that's possible all the time, if they didn't know people would "revolt" if they went that far so quick. They'll move in with more advertisements here, and then a little more and a little more somewhere else, etc.

    • Re:Arrr, matey. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johndoejersey ( 679948 )
      Couldnt agree more.

      When the millenium dome was open in london, I paid it a visit. Amongst the attractions was an exclusive "new" blackadder episode, filmed especially for the millenium dome.

      It made references to using a visa card numerous times. The fact that the millenium dome was supposedly a celebration of life and culture, to see product placement in arguably one of britains finest comedies of all time ruined the experience for me.

      • Re:Arrr, matey. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by @madeus ( 24818 ) <slashdot_24818@mac.com> on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @06:22AM (#8235729)
        It made references to using a visa card numerous times.

        Of course it's obviously based on the character in Barclaycard commercials [rowanatkinson.org] played by Rowen Atkinson himself, and for which he was awarded a Bafta for Best Actor. The series of adverts in which he plays a British special agent was basis of the characters and the setting for the entire episode, it wasn't as if it taken out of context. I think everybody who's seen the adverts understood the reference and got the joke.

        The fact that the millenium dome was supposedly a celebration of life and culture, to see product placement in arguably one of britains finest comedies of all time ruined the experience for me.

        I enjoyed the Dome though the episode of Blackadder, which is now on public release, was very weak indeed and is easily the least of all the episodes filmed. Sponsorship or nae, the references to the adverts still provide humerous unspoke reference in the form of a very inclusive 'in joke' (inclusive, as it's an 'in joke' that around 95% of British public who saw the episode understood). I would have been equally as amused by them had they not been sponsored and written in entirely for humerous purposes by the writers (as well the might have been).

        I belive that appropriate sponsorship in media is actually something to welcome. Having real logos on racing cars, cola adverts on bill boards, sports apparel advertising in sports stadiums actually adds to realism and adds to the level of immersion the game can offer. It's certainly superior to seeing repeated copies of publisher/developers logo where the adverting should be (as with the older FIFA series by EA) or poorly done parodies (though I do appreciate the small number of genuinely amusing parodies I've seen).

        It's also of note that many in the modding community illegally use adverts and images from real world products in their mods (Coke, Pepsi and DrPepper vending machines, Pizza Hut boxes, packs of Malboro, cans of Budweiser are all things I recall seeing) purely to enhance the atmosphere of the level/total conversion - they are of course not being paid to use these images (and as mentioned potentially breeching copyright by using them, though I can't see many companies objecting).

        If at the same time as adding appropriate, unintrusive advertising that adds to the level of realisim and enhances the overall experience we can also bring down the cost of games, that's entirely to be welcomed in my opinion.

        The level of advertising is dependant entirely on what the market will bear, so I don't think there is any cause for fear that the level of sponsorship will get out of hand. Games publishers are not so desperate for cash they would repeatedly jepordise sales and therefore their existance by completely butchering their games.
        • The Blackadder special episode was based on the blackadder series and used numerous direct references and original footage from the Blackadder series.

          Id say the Visa adverts are closer to the 'Johnny English' character.

          The Visa references were probably just 'continuation comedy' because the viewer would now connect Rowan Atkinson with Visa.

          The episode was produced by BBC who could get in extremely hot water if they took payment for advertising in a public production.

    • Re:Arrr, matey. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @06:06AM (#8235687) Homepage
      Listen. If a character in a movie has to buy something relevant to the plot, why not get some cash from Visa for the character to use it? If a basketball player in a video game is wearing a uniform (they would have to, or it would be rated M/AO), then what's wrong with Nike paying top dollar for their "Swoosh" to be on the jersey and/or shoes?

      People in real life use real products. Doesn't it detract from realism and immersion when movie and video game characters (those in realistic/modern situations, anyway) use odd, generic brands?

      As long as product placement isn't insane (like big crowds of extras all drinking Pepsi or Captain Bly as captain of a Criscraft), I don't see the problem. In fact, product placement is a GOOD thing if it lends to realism, such as video game sports venues with real advertising instead of "Sega" or "EA Sports" all over everything.

      • EA are money hungry pigs anyway, so anything for a buck is hardly surprising.

        This is why I like period stuff or fantasy stuff like LOTR. Kinda hard to make Aragorn say "You know, I just defended Helms Deep against the massed hordes of Sauron... I need a Mountain Dew!" without completely selling out your integrity.

    • I don't see what the big deal is.
      I reckon that if it helps a game get made, it's a good thing, and frankly, I am not stupid enough to be swayed by advertising. Yes, adverts on TV piss me off, but seeing them in the background in a position where you'd see them in real life is well, what I expect.
      It just adds realism.
      I'm not going to go buy a McDonalds if I see an advert for it, because I hate them. I'm not going to go buy a Honda if I see an ad for one, 'cause I can't afford it, and don't want to.
      The only

      • frankly, I am not stupid enough to be swayed by advertising

        Ha ha ha ha.

        You do realize that if you were to do a survey, pretty much everyone would claim they are "not stupid enough" to be affected by advertising. And guess what? People are.

        Advertising is based on psychology and tons of time and money put towards trial and error to figure out what works. But strangely, everyone things that they are so highly evolved that psychology doesn't apply to them, and that commercials won't work on them because they

    • I really think it depends on the game. For instance, in my Top Spin (tennis) game my charactor wears this cute little K-Swiss outfit and plays in these stadiums that are covered in advertisements for MasterCard, Nike, whatever. Since this is how I assume things are in real life, it doesn't bother me. Well, I guess it bothers me that Microsoft gets even more money for this game but apparently didn't send enough to their testing division, but that's another story. As for as product placement, I'm cool.
    • Them saying "we don't wan to overwhelm people" is just another clue that companies would jump itno advertising on everything that's possible all the time, if they didn't know people would "revolt" if they went that far so quick

      So they would be willing to accept free money if their customers wouldn't object? Is this supposed to offend me? If someone offered me free money and I knew no one would be bothered by it, I'd take it too.
    • Whilst it bothers me when Warner put a bloody advert for their shitehouse amusement park in Queensland in stream with the start of the Matrix DVD; I have no issue with a realistic looking billboard in the background of a game scene or movie scene; I have a problem with being forced to watch an advert that is out of context!!!

      On-ground advertising, sponser labels are all *REAL* parts of sport; good on them for finding a non-invasive way of presenting this and marketing this (if only they would use the money

  • Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thesp ( 307649 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @05:05AM (#8235515)
    This form of advertising, I feel, only becomes a problem when it detracts from the game. Well-considered product placement may even be essential to enhancing the realism; a game set in the 1990s really ought to feature realistic brands, to add 'authenticity'. The same reasoning can be applied to movies, too.

    On the other hand, if, having just defeated the Hideous Dragon Zorgaroth (for want of a better name), the player can only restore his health with Lucozade Isotonic Sports Drink(r)(tm) etc., then this is likely to be unacceptable.

    Sports game sponsorship falls into the former category. To brind a stadium to life, it is generally better to use current stadium ads, or authentic sports strip, than to invent fictitious, but plausible sounding brands.

    The only further problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if, within the context of an RPG, my character eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their characters, and this will tend to increase the effect.

    A similar problem is if the game rewards preferentially, e.g. drinking a particular type of cola, buying a particular type of PC in game. It is not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your character happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the character's skill, an HP Handheld PC is required.

    In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic especially if the game is attempting to model 'modern life' (e.g. The Sims). Then the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana, rather than the reaility and causality we experience.

    Few studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).

    If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
    • You might already be aware of this, but Sims Online features just this kind of thing with McDonalds. No health penalty whatsoever for eating there all of the time, to my understanding. Not only that, but players can even open their own McDonalds' kiosks and make (ingame) money off of it.

      I am unable to currently find links to the news stories about it, but what was kind of cool is that players were actually doing virtual protests ingame about McDonalds. Not sure how that ended up working out, but at least i

  • A glimpse of the future (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Video-game makers said they try to take care when incorporating products in games, not wanting to overwhelm game players with product spots."

    Yeah, right. Remember this when you're playing Quake 4, and a rocket goes flying past your head with an ad for Coke on the side of it.

    On the other hand, I'm sure any /. reader would love to repeatedly play a level that featured an MS billboard, provided the game had destructible terrain...

  • Something to learn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mork29 ( 682855 ) <keith DOT yelnick AT us DOT army DOT mil> on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @05:14AM (#8235543) Journal
    I actually love the idea of ads in games for so many reasons. The biggest one is that it makes the game developer more income from the game, meaning that they can both charge me less, and make more exciting games. It's a win win. I think that I'll only keep on enjoying this if they use advertisements in the current way. Having banners for McDonals in the background of a basketball game actually makes the game feel more real. When I watch a real basketball game there are ads, why should the computer game not have them? I think that certain websites could learn from this. When you push advertisements right into the middle of a page or have a bunch of popups, the user doesn't even look at them. They just get annoyed and leave your site (sometimes). If you do it unobtrusively, then users can still enjoy your site, and you can make a profit. If advertisements are "integrated" into the website and not forced into it, they can even add to the experience.
    • Advertisings are paid. When there is an ad for Coca Cola in a game, sure the game could cost a little less to the player, but Coca Cola will cost a little more to the drinker. So, considering that looking at Coca Cola ads will make you drink more Coca Cola (yes, it is what the ads are made for), at the very end you are not charged less. In fact you are charged *more* because you have to pay the advertisers. Do you like ads by themselves? If not, ads are bad.
      • I can't say that looking at a Coca Cola ad will *make* me drink more Coca Cola. It may suggest it, but it certainly doesn't make me buy a coke. In fact, the only ads that influence me to buy said beverage come from the supermarket. I live in a highly competitive area with three supermarkets withing 1 mile and dozens within driving distance. I only buy the stuff when it is on sale *and* when the price is low enough. Essentially, I'm not really paying the advertisers. Suckers who pay full price, and those who
    • Who says the game is going to be cheaper? I haven't seen any games sold for less because of product placement. I think these companies are just pocketing the money made from ads as added profit instead of increased budget. And that only makes the ads not worth it to the consumer.
      • Of course reality isn't as simple as either of the two stated possibilities. What actually will happen is that for a while game companies would have higher profits, but of course the market would settle and a combination of higher development costs (snazzier titles) and lower cost would emerge, approximately in line with whether the user wants to spend top dollar on top titles. Additionally this may make some projects financially viable that would not otherwise be. Having more games to chose from certain
    • Except your post has one fault, they do not charge you less, they simply make more profit, and stick you with obtrusive ads.
      • How are the ads "obtrusive" in a video game but not in the real-life analogues to those games (look at the edge of the court at a basketball game, or the banners at a snowboarding event... just don't expect the snowboarders to grind along them 50' off the ground :)) I personally don't like nor dislike product placement in games, I just generally don't notice them, being more interested in actually playing the game.
        • I never said that the real life ads werent obtrusive, and is part of the reason that i dont watch much tv. A quick glance at my shelf shows that i only have one game with product advertising in it, Super Monkey Ball, and its annoying as f**k. I do understand that ads ad realism in some games, i just dont enjoy playing to many of them, because when i play games i do so to escape reality.

  • This is just fine! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @05:25AM (#8235572) Homepage Journal
    I think I can safely say that this does not bother me at all. In fact, this is the kind of advertising I like to see--especially in sports games (or for all I care, pockmarked billboards on the side of a bombed-out building in some FPS) sort of adds to the realism.

  • The end of big-budget commercial games. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @05:28AM (#8235576)
    Just as Hollywood has converged on the "two hours of explosions with product placements" formula for guaranteed success - I fear that the videogame industry is going the exact same way.

    Just as the independent films are typically the only original movies today, the only truly original games of tomorrow won't be made by the large corporations. They won't be willing to take a risk that a completely new game idea / concept will sell enough to recoup the huge production budget.

    Think about it. The formula for a movie today seems to be something along the lines of:

    Gratuitous slow-motion action shots, The Shootout scene, The Car Chase scene, the hero is a martial arts expert that can automatically use any weapon that it is possible to build, lovable sidekick provides comic timing (but may be killed, further motivating the plot) on the way to save the hero's love interest from whoever is this week's bad guy who happens to have a British accent. The movie will suck, but viewers don't know any different go see it anyway. All they have to do is get the biggest opening weekend ever and it doesn't matter how bad word of mouth is, they've already made their money back double.

    And big-budget games will soon all be the following:

    Third-person action adventures where you shoot, can also drive cars between missions, and get FMV scenes every 5 minutes to further the plot (involving a kidnapped gratuitous "love interest"), while enduring your lovable sidekick's comic antics. The gameplay will suck, but reviewers will say they love it or their advertising revenue plummets - and consumers will still buy them anyway because they don't know any better and they left it 8 days instead of 7 and now the store's return policy expired.
    • There is a flaw in what you are saying. Unless what you are selling is a sequel, you need something very original to grab the reviewer's attention. Without that original widget to get reviewers all hyped about, like Rise of Nation's territory system or XIII's daring art direction, the reviewers will blow past your game onto something else. The game we just shipped was a solidly made game that all of the reviewers agreed was a blast to play, but it had nothing original about it. Except in specific circle
  • Here in Aus, Brand new games retail at AU$90. If ingame advertising will make it cheaper for me then I'm all for it.

  • Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by steve.m ( 80410 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @06:10AM (#8235697) Journal
    It allows the companies who are willing to pay a chance to get some brand awareness with groups they wouldn't ordinarily conect with and it's not intrusive.

    This has been done in films many times (Apple in Mission Impossible) - If it's done well it actually adds to the realisim of the film. It maintains the suspension of disbelief if the hero uses an Apple powerbook (which a lot of people have herad of) rather than a SupaDupaPuter 1000 (made up name). Of course nobodys going to want to sponsor the bad guy...

    Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see this approach replace the advert breaks in TV shows
    • " It allows the companies who are willing to pay a chance to get some brand awareness with groups they wouldn't ordinarily conect with and it's not intrusive."

      Your words couldn't have been more relevant. I work in advertising, and Madison Avenue is desperate as hell to figure out where exactly the 18-35 male demographic went, because they're sure as hell not watching TV anymore. Many people say they're on the internet or playing computer games or PS2, and an article in the New York Times Magazine said th

  • One of the things EtM got right (sorta) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mirkon ( 618432 ) <mirkon.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @07:19AM (#8235958) Homepage
    As a whole, Enter the Matrix failed the advertising test. By the end, I was indescribably sick of seeing banners for Intel and Nvidia.

    But there was one thing that, though cheesy, remains in my memory: the Powerade machines. You could kick a machine, and a can of Powerade would come out. It wouldn't do anything, but it was a funny little touch, and a distraction from the ass-beatings elsewhere in the game.

    I guess the moral of the story is that if you can make advertising interactive within a game, it has a greater impact.
  • It's in the game.

  • In game adverts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JustJon ( 731538 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @09:59AM (#8236721) Homepage
    In game adverts don't really bother me when it's more subtle. When I played Wipeout XL, there were ads for Red Bull all over the tracks. I had never heard of the product at the time and when I first saw it in a store, I picked up a can to see what it was. Darkened Skye is way over the top, where there is a a subplot to pick up as many Skittles candies as you can. They just beat you over the head with it. Games with advertisements still seem to cost the same $50 in stores, and I doubt the added income for the developer/distributor will be passed down to the consumer.

    • Was it Commander Keen with the coke cans?
    • It's not so much that savings will get passed down to the consumer - keep in mind that video game prices have remained pretty constant for a good number of years. The real reason to root for good advertising deals (coupled with unobtrusive, integrated placement) is that it defrays the ever-increasing costs associated with video game development. Advertising people are naturally going to start with the biggest fish in the pond (EA) that doesn't need the money that badly, but over time - if they're convince

  • Only where appropriate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Really, I think the product placement is only appropriate where we are to expect it or have already been desensitized to it.

    Examples where I think it's aceptable: A racing game with sponsor banners and products; Some sports with similar banners, etc...

    Example where it feels completely out of place:
    SSX 3: Seeing that damn Honda Element all over the place just really pisses me off. The game has this over-top kind of exagerrated super-saturated reality to it, and then BOOM, there's a real-world car sitting t
  • Their games are set in the present. Their content would naturally contain ads. At basketball/football/baseball/etc games, ad placement is all over the place. Its only natural to have them in the game. You can't do this with games like KOTOR, they don't have Intel Chips a (really) Long time ago, in a galaxy far away.

    so what's the big deal? They have an advantage because of their game setting.
    • Lord of the Rings is set in the present? Battlefield 1942? Medal of Honor?
      • The original poster was referencing EA's success with ad placement in its sports games. So was my comment

        In EA's games, basketball players wear Adidas or Nike and run past a McDonald's banner on the court; Old Spice deodorant highlights football college players of the game; a snowboarder swooshes past Honda Motor Co.'s newest vehicle, the Element.

        But really the point is, their most successful games, their most popular games, the games with the most exposure to the masses, are the sports games. Its no

  • Good news for Sim City (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @02:16PM (#8239922) Homepage
    Hopefully if/when SimCity 5 is developed there will be actual models for retailers.. This IMHO would add a huge dimension of realism for that game. Probably one of the few games were commercial placement would actually be really appropriate.
  • The good: Anything that defrays the cost of game development will have one or more of the following effects: Cheaper games. Better games. More [financially viable] games.

    The bad: I really like fictional brands. That shit is great. Also this makes it harder for genres which aren't as advertising-friendly (fantasy, for instance) to compete.

  • Why this is good and why this good means bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Tuesday February 10, 2004 @04:08PM (#8241172)
    I'm all for developers/producers making a couple extra million from advertising. Good them I say, long live capitalism.

    What I'm not for is the fact that this means jack squat for consumers. If EA gets an extra $10 million from Nike, what do I get? The same game, by a rushed developer, with a bunch of extra advertisement... for the same $50 USD.

    Companies like EA isn't going to lower the cost of their games because of this. They're not going to give the dev team an extra month to work out the bugs and balance it out some more. No, they're going to pocket the money from Nike, take my money, and pocket that too.

  • I remembered watching a TV program a couple of years back when they interviewed an EA representative. They mentioned that EA used to have to PAY the companies to include their brand names in the games (namely NHL 2000 and earlier). Now the tides have turned due to increase in video game exposure. As for anything else, it's all about perception -- which company has a better advantage and higher bargaining power.
  • In EVE Online, there are billboards that run ads for fictitious stuff that is part of the game world:

    Quafe - beverage and powerful company akin to PepsiCo in the US, only more so

    Pax Amarria - a book that it is politically correct to like (written by an Amarr Emperor).

    There are other ads, sometimes done in holographic lights on board some stations.

    These ads are done right, they are unobtrusive, they don't materially affect gameplay, and add to the realism. The only thing which detracts from the realism,
  • In EA's games, basketball players wear Adidas or Nike and run past a McDonald's banner on the court; Old Spice deodorant highlights football college players of the game;
    So their target audience is fat sweaty men in tear away pants?

  • Product placement works if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @02:38AM (#8246432)
    Regarding product placement in games, some things that I believe should be done:
    1.Advertising should only appear in places it normally appears. For example, if you are moving through a subway or train station, put billboards in the places one normally finds them. Or put billboards alongside the road in a driving game like Cruisn USA. Or like how the Need For Speed games feature real cars like porsche, ferrari etc.

    2.If you are simulating a real-world present-day situation (such as a sports stadium & sports teams or racetrack & race teams), use the same ads as the real world situation. One example of this being done wrong is the EA game V8 Challenge. In this game, there is a simulation of the Mount Panorama racetrack at Bathurst (in australia). One part of this racetrack has a bridge of some kind that crosses over the track. On the real racetrack there is (and was when V8 Challenge was created) an advertisment for Dunlop tyres on this bridge. But in V8 Challenge, the buffoons at EA put Bridgestone logos on the bridge instead and ruined things.

    Same with sports teams and etc. For example, just like how Ferrari is sponsered by various companies (tic-tac, shell, vodafone etc) in real life, the Ferraris in should have the correct sponsors logos in the right place. (although in a few cases there can be issues e.g. where cigarette ads are still legal for some motorsports but where they arent legal in the games)

    3.Dont have player interation with the products being advertised. For example, a game where you have to buy food from a KFC or whatever to move through the game is bad. In cases where real-world items are used for gameplay, dont just have one brand (e.g. if you are going to have real-world cars, have several makes)
    This only applies in games where there is a defined "player". (e.g. a RPG or a game like "the sims"). Having e.g. a KFC store or a Shell gas station pop up in a Sim City city for example would be fine since its not being directly used by the player.

    4.Dont put ads in the wrong setting. For example, having an ad for Nike in a medieval themed game would be totally stupid since nike shoes never existed back then. "future earth" games not based on any particular universe can have product placement and get away with it as long as it looks like it would still be used in the future (in the future, people still enjoy a refreshing ice cold Coca-Cola or whatever it is)

    and 5.Dont put the ads or products into the dialog or storyline. For example, dont have a character in a cutscene say "Lets go get a Coke" or whatever.

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Close