Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Technology

In-Game Advertising Makes Games Better? 352

Pretty much every time we hear about a game launching in-game advertising it sounds like a horrible idea that will only serve to detract from the experience. However JJ Richards of Massive wants you to give it a chance, claiming that if done correctly it can not only work, but actually enhance the overall experience. "In fact, according to Massive's research, gamers like ads. Here's the caveat: they have to add to the gaming experience. He describes a game that takes place in Times Square. With no ads, it's not real at all. With generic ads, it's a little better. 'Now imagine Times Square with ads you just saw on television or read in a newspaper—the latest movie release or television show or a new car model,' he said. 'Imagine further that it is up-to-the-minute, whether you played your game today or six months from now. That is much more realistic.' His argument is that gamers consume the experience of ads, not just the ads themselves. 'The ads add to and enhance that experience, and our research shows that it is highly effective for both game play as well as advertisers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In-Game Advertising Makes Games Better?

Comments Filter:
  • by roguegramma ( 982660 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @02:25PM (#29696475) Journal

    Well, an in-game ad is also kind of an insane way to deal with people who play your game.

    Instead of saying "This game is great", an in-game ad says "Go do something else that is more fun".
    It is similar to a porn site that tries to make money off links to competing porn sites.

    I can see that ads have their place in free games which would otherwise not be possible, and that it could make sense if your game melds in with real life non-gaming ads.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09, 2009 @02:45PM (#29696703)

    Except that's not how it works in video games.... or movies.

    Video game with no ads: $50
    Video game "splash" ads before you launch it every time: $50
    Video game with in-game ads: $50

    Movie ticket to movie with previews only: $9
    Movie ticket to movie with real advertisements mixed in with previews (i.e., 30-second "TV" spot for GM): $9
    Movie ticket to movie with product placements during film: $9

    They keep making more and more money and we never seem to get any benefit back. Ad-supported SHOULD mean that we pay LESS in exchange for agreeing to view ads... not that we pay the SAME and the developers just make more an more money.

  • Re:Illusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @02:50PM (#29696773)

    If advertisers (or product placers) start paying to get their products placed, or moreso, if you see ads before the game starts, will the price of games go down?

    Nope. Remember when cable TV was new? One of the big selling point was that there were no commercials. Why would there be commercials, when you're paying for access? Well once Cable became mainstream a couple channels started sneaking in a few commercials, then a few more, then commercials on cable became standard. They get you to pay to view their advertising.

    No. When cable TV was new (at least where I was), there sure as heck were commercials. There were a bunch of network affiliates and local broadcast stations, all of which had advertisements. One of the oddities touted in early cable days was the idea that you would have a channel (Home Shopping Network) that carried nothing but advertisement. Then there were the premium channels (WHT, HBO, later Showtime), which carried feature movies, but no advertisements. There were a few channels with content owned or licensed by the cable network that carried no advertisements. MTV actually IS and was a commercial for the pop music industry.

    So, there never was some kind of ideal time when cable TV was commercial free, because you just paid for access.

  • by dr00g911 ( 531736 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @04:52PM (#29698417)

    I work in advertising.

    People hate advertising. They're inundated with it. People in advertising hate advertising (at least on the creative side)... but they recognize that it's a necessary evil, and it's one of the most reliable ways for slacker artist types like myself to get gainful career employment. I have no illusions. I'm helping sell shit to people that they don't want or need.

    Usually, I work in business to business stuff, so I don't have to do the soul-searching thing as often as folks who market for consumer brands/retail.

    Occasionally people might enjoy a Superbowl spot, or the like, but those are generally narratives, and they account for the tiniest fraction of a percent of all advertising.

    I appreciate the craft and thought process that goes into making effective marketing in the same way that I can appreciate move recaps of classic chess games. That doesn't mean I want to experience them in real-time. I want to experience them on my own terms... marketers' responses have been to simply scream louder and louder so that the advertising can't be avoided.

    My $12 movie ticket buys me 20 minutes of advertorial (not including previews) if I want to get a decent seat. I get congratulated on my free nano or wii 200x a day if I forget to disable Flash. Same thing on a different scale.

    TLDR: Don't think you know too many folks who create advertising... just ones who sell it. There's a difference.

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Working...