Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


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

In-Game Advertising Moves Towards Testing 63

Posted by Zonk from the please-wait-loading-spam dept.
Thanks to HomeLAN for the news that Activision and Nielsen will be testing in-game adverts starting at the end of the year. Though we've mentioned this previously, the press release would seem to indicate things are moving into their final stages. "The two companies announced that they are launching a groundbreaking test using the newly-released Activision video game, Tony Hawk's Underground 2 to determine how long and how often players interact with brands. The test will feature Nielsen's watermarking technology that uses audio encoding to uniquely identify when players are exposed to product placements within the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In-Game Advertising Moves Towards Testing More

In-Game Advertising Moves Towards Testing

Comments Filter:

  • Already happening (Score:5, Informative)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:34PM (#10558583) Homepage Journal
    Play EA Sports NCAA football 2005 - after each score, they do a "Pontiac Drive summary" like you'd see on TV - and they don't let you skip it.

    • Re:Already happening (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LittLe3Lue ( 819978 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:43PM (#10558681)
      For the most part I am very annoyed with game companies starting to introduce ads into games, especially if they pause the game. If ads were short and funny, it would be alright, but I dont think there is any justification for advertising in games.

      When I pay for cable TV, I expect advertising, because I am paying the cable company to deliver me feed from the networks. The networks themselves need to make money somehow. I dont pay them directly.

      But, when it comes to games, I pay for the game. The extra money they make off of ads does not benefit me, the viewer, at all.

      If I was to get a game for free because it included ads, then I wouldnt complain. But if i become forced to watch Joe Scateboarder 'drink coke because its better then pepsi' every time I do a trick, I'll chuck the game out the window.

      • Re:Already happening (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Ralin_JM ( 813496 )
        How do you feel about the new espn line of sports games that undercut the price(selling for $20 new)? If they include advertising to subsidise the price cut, would you mind?
        • Not if it doesn't slow down gameplay - which is kind of where that game sucks. It's a good game, and they're trying to add some "realism" with it, but I'd just as soon be able to turn off the fluff and just play it.

          If you have a game where there's product placement - gatorade signs, nike swooshes and the like - that doesn't get in the way I have no problem with it.

          • am for MORE ads in Tony Hawks Underground...

            As long as I can GRIND ON THEM...
            • In-game product placement is one thing. I think I could live with that (Imagine if JC Denton smoked "Marlboro" instead of "Coughin' Nails" in "Deus Ex"). However, when I get SPAMMED in-game (Hello, Xenosaga, I'm talking to you, you whore!), I get a little pissed. If I start seeing COMMERCIALS in games, I'm going to get a LOT pissed.

      • Re:Already happening (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @05:02PM (#10559346)

        When I pay for cable TV, I expect advertising...

        Didn't cable TV originally not contain advertising because it was being paid-for in the first place?

        I am noticing lately (only got cable a couple of years ago) that more and more channels are featuring more and more infomercials in place of real programming. If you notice carefully, the corporations that are pushing the 1000+ channel cable/satellite concept seem to be shuffling popular programs around in order to get existing subscribers to add more channels to their line-up.

        Putting forced-to-view ads into games is ridiculous, as there's already enough product placement in most titles.

        This reminds me of recent TV shows that blur out brand names on the surrounding stage decoration because (presumeably) the displayed advertising icons' owners refused to pay some kind of presentation fee. Am I going overboard with this observation, or is it some form of subtle "extortion" on the part of some producers?
        • Most of the informercials run during times on channels with very specific demographics, when the channels regular viewers are not watching. G4TV, for example, runs them very early in the morning. Channels with a daytime audience (The ones targeting housewives) often start doing informercials in the early evening, and channels with a big focus on prime-time run them late at night, in the morning, and during the day.
      • When I pay for cable TV, I expect advertising, because I am paying the cable company to deliver me feed from the networks

        Man, things have changed. When I was a kid, living in the states, the reason people got cable was that there were no commercials. They're considered standard now?

  • blargh (Score:3, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:36PM (#10558597)
    if they force me to watch ads or interact with product placements in a game, I'll make a point not to buy those products or give my business to a competing product.

    well, Gran Turismo games excepted.

    • Re:blargh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jpmkm ( 160526 )
      I'm sure there will be enough people like you who will make exceptions for this to still be profitable.

    • Re:blargh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xentax ( 201517 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:56PM (#10559300)
      Well you hinted at the difference - at least, the difference (for me) between acceptable/tolerable and "a deal breaker".

      "Spots" in racing games - the decals on the cars, and signs on the tracks in particular - are literally part of the real sport, and thus no big deal to me. In fact, seeing authentic sponsors is kinda cool (or even some of the pretty blantant parodies like in Burnout 3).

      Similar things are ok up to a point - like branding on the scoreboards or menu UI that *act* like scoreboards, the distance meter in Links2004, stuff like that. Basically, anything *passive* is fine - most of us learn how to ignore that stuff anyway (like banner ads), and the advertisers know how to play along, they try to make the ads register but not *Bother* you.

      It's this interactive/intrusive stuff like the Pontiac Drive thing someone mentioned for an EA game that, to me, is unacceptable. Stuff like that should either be configurable (as in, I can turn it off completely), skippable (you can hit "A" at any point to skip the damn thing), or had better have an overt effect on the price of the game. If Pontiac wants to subsidize 5 dollars off the price of a game, I *might* be willing to consider it. Of course, that's NOT what's happening. Maybe they're helping the development company maintain a cash flow while the game's being developed, but there's no public sign that they're actually reducing the end-user's cost.

      Certain games (not just racing games) can certainly gain an air of authenticity/immersion/realism/whatever from authentic product placement. I agree that situations where it's the guns in an FPS or the cars in GTA can be awkward for the maker of said products, but I hope that doesn't spawn another round of public hysteria ("Gee, you can use a Colt or a Buick to kill someone? Better sue!" Just more evidence that stupidity is one of the few genuine crimes).

      But I don't think you'll see that happen anyway. I doubt the gun manufacturers were *paying* Rockstar to put authentic weapons in GTA; more likely they asked them to STOP putting them in there without permission (or maybe they had permission but lost it). They probably don't have authentic cars in GTA because those car companies like to get paid for the spots and/or don't like to see their cars damaged/burning/destroyed.

      Unfortunately, this seems to me like another example of where video game makers have the potential to irk the shit out of buyers and get away with it. If you buy Madden 2006 and find out it has a totally obnoxious advertising subsystem, what can you do? You probably won't be able to return it. All you can do is raise a public stink and hope the company bows to the outrage and patches the game (And even that might not be possible if it was a console release). There are enough people who will pay for the game anyway, whether they find out about the ads before or after, that some companies - especially ones that seem more bottom-line-driven than others, like EA, to do it anyway.

      Maybe complaining to the advertising companies would work better? I don't know. As long as the consumer memory is short-term enough that these gimmicks pay off (or even seem to pay off) for the companies behind them, they'll keep using them. Movie product placement is as bad as ever, but has it really bitten into movie sales (or rentals, or dvd purchases) for anything out there? No. A lousy review seems to be the best chance at that; maybe none have actually "Gone too far" yet. Maybe there is a line they can't cross, but it's entirely too obnoxious for most of us (where "us" might well be a minority of the target consumers) to be happy about.

      Xentax
      • A lousy review seems to be the best chance at that; maybe none have actually "Gone too far" yet.

        Good post. One assumption you seem to be making is that stuff like this happens instantly. Someone who buys this round of games with annoying ads will be less likely to buy into the next round that comes around if they are annoyed by the ads. I know quite a few gamers who would feel incredibly patronized and insulted by this sort of thing. Those people aren't the sort of people who play sports games, but

  • WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So the entire game is just a test for a new advertising method? If I bought that game, I'd feel cheated out of my fifty bucks.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JackBuckley ( 696547 )
      I have to agree with the parent's sentiment on this one. People who watch television or listen to radio put up with advertising because the programming is provided at no cost. Cable channels and product placement in films blurs this line considerably, but advertising in games completely shatters it. I simply will not buy a game with advertising, period. Not to mention the privacy concerns raised by other posters, I find the idea of in-game ads on a product costing upwards of $50 jarring and offensive.

      I als

      • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 )
        People who watch television or listen to radio put up with advertising because the programming is provided at no cost.

        If that were really true, I wouldn't have a monthly cable bill. I get 50 channels. Only 2 don't show commercials (both are PBS stations). And yet I have to pay $45 a month for that.

        It is bloody despicable they did this. I saw THUG2 running the other day. Very nice game, was debating buying it, but after reading this, I most certainly won't be.

        As I stated in a prior post, I'm into racing

        • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Informative)

          by tholomyes ( 610627 )

          I've played through a lot of THUG2 by this point, for the PS2; the PC version appears to be what they're targeting this gimmick towards, though.

          But isn't it already a walking ad for skateboarding companies (volcom, girl, etc.) and all of their clothing/boards/other gear/skate videos, plus an ad for all of the musicians on the soundtracks... and there's been product placement bits in these games forever. Weren't there Mountain Dew ads in THPS1 or THPS2?

          My guess is this will be more about product placeme

          • Thing is, I expect skating brands in a skating game. Just like I expect car part brands in Gran Turismo. That's fine. What I object too is unrelated crap, like Chrysler in a skating game. that makes about as much sense as the skating companies being in Gran Turismo.

            And I really don't remember seeing Mountain Dew in THPS2.

            • And I really don't remember seeing Mountain Dew in THPS2.

              Well, I can't find a good screenshot of it, but Google for "thps mountain dew downhill jam", and you'll see that many a walkthrough mentions the "Mountain Dew billboard" on the Downhill Jam level, looks like THPS1.

    • I have this game and until I read this article I would never have guessed it had an inordinate amount of advertising. There are no ads per se except for in game product placements such as vending machines for butterfinger (which you can grind on in one level to register a gap - I thought this was actually a cool way to do it) and some other very nonintrusive elements. The biggest branding comes from the gear you can use and almost all of that is skateboarding related which is what you expect. But all of

  • Anomalous Coward says: Spyware senses tingling (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How exactly are theyplanning on using this information? Are they hoping that consumers will just go out and buy this stuff?
    Maybe they have something insidious in mind, like doing this in online capable games and having some sort of spyware that phones home from your console.

    (Good thing I'm posting in the games section, where no one will ever hear about this. I don't have to worry about evil corporations hearing about this idea and implementing it as long as this story doesn't hit the front page.)
    • Exactly - not one post yet has mentioned the horrific privacy invasion that this kind of detailed tracking imposes on the players.

      When corporations are already trying to break into the underage childrens market through schools, by sponsoring and pushing their products in every way possible to kids at school, now they also get to track little timmys every Grind in the game that their parents just bought for Timmy - thinking, mistakenly that the game was 'family-friendly' enough for him...

      Instead we have a

  • Great... product placements... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ssclift ( 97988 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:47PM (#10558727)

    Let's see how the kids interact with in game brands and product placements? I can see it now...

    Congratulations, your new weapon is the new Colt(TM) M16A3 Assault Rifle featuring a folding stock, 90 round magazine and a 40mm M203 grenade launcher. A fine American product for fine American gamers. Great for mutant Martians or just shootin' up the neighborhood. Click here for a dealer near you!

    • Heh, GTA actually changed the name of the guns in the name to be less like real gun brands:

      Colt .45 = Pistol
      Python = .357
      Spaz Shotgun = S.P.A.S. 12
      Ingram Mac 10 = Mac
      Uzi 9mm = Uz-I
      MP5 = MP
      Ruger = Kruger
      PSG-1 = .308 Sniper

      (Ripped from RARusk's FAQ about version differences between GTA3/GTA3 Double Pack)

      Gun companies would do pretty much anything to avoid advertising to kids. Kids don't have money, jobs, and can't buy guns anyway.
      • "Gun companies would do pretty much anything to avoid advertising to kids. Kids don't have money, jobs, and can't buy guns anyway." Yeah, it pays much more to lobby to start a war in Irak. *cough*Hallibur*cough*. Dick*cough*eney*cough* .*sigh*

      • Gun companies would do pretty much anything to avoid advertising to kids. Kids don't have money, jobs, and can't buy guns anyway.

        Kids (sometimes) grow into adults with money and jobs who buy guns. Brand awareness is best instilled early on. Gun companies know what horrenduous PR they would receive from the perception that they market to children, and thus they are best off avoiding it. If it weren't for that consideration, I'm sure it would be in their interest to have children grow up thinking that their

  • Testing?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnold@yahoo.cMOSCOWom minus city> on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:47PM (#10558729) Homepage Journal

    I thought we were already doing this.

    How many ricers went out and bought TRD and NISMO stickers for their Hyundai's because of Gran Turismo?

  • In your face advertising (Score:2, Interesting)

    by br0ck ( 237309 )
    I picked up the PC version the other day and 99% of the time the camera has been facing the front of my character making the game completely unplayable. Now that I read this article, I finally understand this was simply a feature added so that I can continuously view the jeep logo on his t-shirt.

    The parts of the level I have seen are pretty heavily covered in advertising. Even the instruction booklet is half ads.

    (In case anyone is wondering, I have tried various configurations of keyboard and gamepad with

  • Of course it wont be, but..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:56PM (#10558804) Journal
    If this was done correctly I think it would greatly enhance the realism of games. Instead of that generic looking soda can on the table it may be a real Pepsi or coke can. bulletin boards would have realistic ads on them rather than just some goofy made up ad. I'll be able to stop at the Circle K on the corner rather than the fast shop or what ever generic named shop is.

    Plus in GTA I could blow the crap out of a real Walmart!!!!!
    • I have to agree. If its done in a mundane matter, like billboards or flyers/posters on the sidewalk or walls, fine. Hell, even real stores or cars, etc is fine. I think it adds to the game. Now, if it starts throwing in commercials on the in game radio, or forcing me to watch ads (load screen is marginably acceptable), then I have a problem with it. If its starts phoning home, forget it.

  • monitize me! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rhettoric ( 772376 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @03:58PM (#10558833) Homepage
    This trend is not only frustrating but it's becoming absurd. I'm perfectly willing to accept advertisements for free services (i.e. network television, GMail), but I find it infuriating that my purchases are increasingly subverted into a branding vector.

    Perhaps I'm a bit extreme, but I make it a point to not buy products that advertise the brand and if that's impossible I try to purchase products where I can remove the branding as soon as I go home (this can be difficult for things like cars, but surprisingly easy for many clothing items).

    I realize I'm a bizarre specimin of an american consumer, but I don't CARE if people know what kind of car I drive as long as it gets me from A to B. I do not find satisfaction and community through my choice of pepsi over coke or vice versa. I am not my Operating System.

    Am I the only one that's sick of paying to see a movie and then suffering through "the 20?" I've almost entirely stopped seeing first-run movies just to avoid this advertising, but thanks to product placement they get me anyway.

    I bought the product! I've paid your development bills! Shouldn't I be allowed to use it in peace?

  • Sounds great! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by user no. 590291 ( 590291 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:38PM (#10559178)
    This means the games are going to be free now, right? Since I'm sure as hell not going to pay money to have ads shoved in my face, thank you very much.
    • Yeah, we'd never let them do that to us in a movie theater either.

      (In case you're wondering, yeah I'm bitter.)
      • I pretty much only borrow movies from the library, or rent them, for precisely that reason. At home, I'm guaranteed a good seat. At the theatre, I have to choose between my party being crammed into the center of a row or separated over having to watch 20 minutes of non-movie related ads and an admonition to respect copyrights. That's a tough choice.

  • So far everyone is missing the point... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:41PM (#10559199) Homepage Journal
    I Nielsen is involved it means the games will be phoning home!

    They may be placing in-game ads already but there is no live tracking going on as yet. This appears to be a test of the online ad interaction TRACKING service. Which brands get the most attention, what sort of interactivity gets the most attention... how do competing brands fare in-game? Will coke and pepsi see brand loyalty even without a physical product? How about giving out special offers to people who interact with the ads... free music downloads.. or unlocking bonus levels, the possibilities for engaging people and especially kids is 'virtually unlimited'.

    • Re:So far everyone is missing the point... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#10559266) Homepage Journal
      um, read the f***** blurb will ya?

      ***The test will feature Nielsen's watermarking technology that uses audio encoding to uniquely identify when players are exposed to product placements within the game.*** what I'd take that to mean, without knowing single thing about nielsens boxes, is that you'd place their device near your speakers, and that's how it knows if you're seeing an ad or not, by detecting some magic audio signals. in other words.. the game would NOT be phoning home from the computer.

  • I have noticed that many online servers for CS have in-game ads for server renting and a popular memory brand. They add 3D models of billboards into classic maps (eg. cs_italy, de_dust and de_dust2) via some kind of plugin that integrates with map info already in your game folder. The billboard models are small in filesize so you can download a fresh set of ads if the sponsorship changes. They are non-invasive play-wise but IMAO are rather an eyesore. I won't complain if the ads increase the number of s

  • Oblig.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @04:55PM (#10559293)
    Sorry, it had to be posted.. here [penny-arcade.com]

  • Complain to the companies involved! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheLoneDanger ( 611268 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:02PM (#10559809)
    I have seen quite a few people unhappy about the idea of ads in videogames (and especially the monitoring of how these ads are viewed). Now obviously low sales are going to send a message, but it is MUCH better to let them know EXPLICITLY that the reason you are not buying or are not satisfied with a game is because of the ads. Let them know it damages your opinion of the brand (Tony Hawk games), and also your opinion of the publisher. It says in the article that Lionhead's next game "The Movies" will be a continuation of Chrysler's ads in Activision games, and Activision apparently did a study that told them that gamers had a positive opinion of ads in games. Go to Activision's and/or Chrysler's website and fire off an e-mail, or if you can manage to find a mailing address, send them a dead tree complaint or two and let them know different.

  • What a horrible idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OldManAndTheC++ ( 723450 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @06:52PM (#10560194)
    Is there any area of human activity which remains free of advertising? These guys continue to sink to new lows. Not long ago I went into a bar restroom to take a leak, and on the wall above the urinal was an ad. Talk about your captive audience. And how about the movies? Most U.S. theater chains now air advertisements before the trailers (which are themselves advertisements).

    I dread the day when there is no more "content", and all entertainment is advertising. It can't be too far off now.

  • My sister had Microsoft's WebTV for a while before finally getting a computer to surf the net. I hated that thing. You were forced to watch unavoidable commercials (full screen ad banners) during the loading of every page. This was at dialup speeds so I'm sure you can immagine how annoying it was. If video games start going down this route, they will lose this regular customer.
  • If MMORPG's catch onto this, it'll mean we'll be seeing McDonald billboards every time we venture into a new city.

  • Happened already in 1990! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:08AM (#10563351) Homepage
    Remember that salesman in the SCUMM(TM)-bar trying to sell you Loom(TM)? :)
  • Expect to see ad-removal patches in the future. The real shops in Crazy Taxi were okay, but when advertising gets invasive it's time to bypass it (as with AdBlock, TiVO etc).
  • The 18 - 35 demographic is the most difficult for advertisers to hit. Studies have shown that games are the best way to reach this demographic. Imagine putting a nice juicy steak in front of a starved dog. It's only going to get more and more invasive.
  • Growing up in this day, I expect to see advertising constantly in the real world. If a game depicts a somewhat realistic world, it's logical to have branding and ads. However, my tastes tend toward RPGs which occur in fantasy worlds, so real-world ads would make no sense at all. Thus, my fear is that a dependence on ads in games will mean the end of original and imaginative fantasy worlds. Games will have to take place in worlds that can support ads, and that is going to place a real constraint on future in

Slashdot Top Deals

Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.

Close