Study Indicates In-Game Ads Actually Work 78
The Next Generation site is running a piece discussing new findings about in-game advertising. The results of collaboration between an ad firm and a research company show that ads in games are actually having an effect on players. Double Fusion's involvement in the study throws the results into question. Take these statistics with a grain of salt: "75% of gamers engage with at least one ad per minute across most, but not all, game types; 81% of gamers engage at least every other minute. Less-cluttered ads are three times as effective at garnering gamer notice than ads that are either cluttered or within cluttered environments. While both contribute positively to ad engagement, placement of the ad in the primary camera plane (eye-level) is more important than large size ads. Not all ads are created equal - dynamic billboards, around-game interstitials, sponsorships, and interactive product placements all offer different levels of user engagement and pervasiveness in the game" Eidos certainly thinks so; Kotaku notes that they've signed up with the same company featured in this study.
Does it matter if they're right? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I really care about is the pervasiveness of ads in games, and from that standpoint the veracity of these numbers is much less important than what the people putting them in games think. And I'm not convinced that even if a dozen studies came out saying in-game ads don't work that they'd actually stop. There's a lot of vested interest in putting ads in games, and while they will surely embrace this study, they'd probably be highly skeptical of a study that said the opposite. How many studies have shown that people tend to completely ignore web-based ads, not even registering their existence a lot of the time? And are there less web-based ads? No, because the reality is that they probably do work overall, and certainly the people putting ads on websites aren't going to take the risk of stopping.
Which I guess makes my only point "more ads are coming regardless of what studies say".
And Does It Matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I play games, I notice the ads. How can you not? When my secret agent runs head first into a Comcast van, how does one not notice?
So yes, I have no doubt that 81% of players or whatever notice their insipid ads. The question is, do gamers care, and are they more likely to purchase an advertiser's service due to the ad? There is such a thing as bad publicity.
Personally I've never made a buying decision off an ad in a game. In fact, they annoy me, and when I see the product/brand in real life I am reminded of that annoyance. I would say I'm *less* likely to choose a product over its competitor because of the annoyance it has caused me while I'm trying to relax.
Secondly, are in-game ads really worth it for game developers? My ire towards in-game ads are less directed at the advertisers than the game companies responsible for producing the mess in the first place. My opinion of EA and Ubisoft is decreasing very rapidly due to their rampant participation in this money grab. I am less likely to purchase their games, and in fact I have stopped purchasing EA games completely as a matter of principle. How much are advertisers giving them, and does it balance out with loss of customers like myself?
Didn't include all metrics (Score:3, Insightful)
They should compare these ads to just flashing random brightly colored crap on the screen, and see which one gets more "engagement".
STUDY (Score:1, Insightful)
What exactly is engaging? (Score:3, Insightful)
Games with ads should be FREE (Score:4, Insightful)
No good will come of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly constitutes exposure to advertising? Let's take any EA game plastered with marketing crap. Even menu screens are promoting one product for another. Let's take one of the FIFA games. I decide I want to customize my players so I spend a few minutes equipping my players with some sneakers. Those sneakers happen to be Adidas or Nike sneakers. Does this count as exposure? Suppose I'm camping a spot in an FPS and there just so happens to be a billboard facing my direction. Does that count as exposure?
The point is that the marketing company could care less. What they want are metrics that look good. They don't care how effective the marketing actually is, nor is there any real way of knowing. But on paper it looks good and so developers fall for it. Not that they care, because it's extra advertising income for them.
I find this particularly troubling. Does this mean we're going to get less realistic environments? We can't have overly detailed environments if there's a risk of advertising blending into the background. I predict, however, we're going to end up with the gaming equivalent of pop up banners. Advertisers will just have these big crap banners floating around in mid air. And I expect the quality of these ads to be utter crap. In all the years of advertising on the web 95% of it still looks like garbage. We're going to be stuck with LowerMyBills banners in our games.
I also think it's naive to think that the cost of our games will drop once advertising is introduced. Developers and publishers aren't looking to introduce advertising in order to make the same amount of money they make now. This will be like cable and satellite television. You'll pay as much, if not more than you pay now AND you get the added bonus of advertising. Advertising will only become more intrusive and unlike browsers there will be no way to block any of it. And lets not forget that our games are going to be sanitized and inoffensive, in order to appease advertisers. And games will be compromised in order to appeal to desired demographics.
Don't like it? They'll go somewhere else... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you honestly hate in-game advertising so much that you stop buying games with it, then the big publishers will just make more games that people who don't hate ads like (Bejeweled-7 and The Sims 19).
I don't know much about marketing, but I wonder if this is the reason why 99% of all broadcast TV sucks (too hard to advertise to people who like smart TV).
The study is bullshit, as they always are (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As ususal, whether the ad nags depends on the a (Score:3, Insightful)
What these companies are waiting for is a critical mass of consumers willing to at least tolerate advertising in games. Once that happens then we're really going to see a flood of shit. And rest assured it isn't going to consist of anything subtle, inoffensive and in keeping with the theme of the game. Advertisers aren't exactly known for subtlety.
You mention that BF2142 is an example of advertising applied tastefully. Explain to me how advertising somehow fits in a world that's ravaged by war and an ice age. The few remaining superpowers are battling over what few resources are left but Jeep has decided there was a big enough market to advertise for an SUV, and then place billboards on the battlefield no less. I guess they're nothing if not persistent. Then there are the billboards for movies like Ghost Rider. The game is based over 130 years in the future and they're still anticipating the release of this movie. And apparently DVDs, Bluray and UMDs are still being used. In an energy-starved, war-torn and frozen future.
So much for advertising fitting with the theme of the game.