Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


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

In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 2012 83

Posted by Zonk from the here-is-your-axe-would-you-like-a-coke-too dept.
GamesIndustry.biz reports on comments from analyst firm Parks Associates on the bright future for game advertisements. General advertising for games is expected to skyrocket in the next few years, reaching some $2 billion by the year 2012. Additionally in-game advertising, which ran about $55 million last year, is expected to reach $800 Million in the same year. "'Advertising in electronic games had an average monthly household expenditure of less than 50 cents in 2006, while broadcast TV was at $37, meaning advertisers are not using the gaming medium to its full potential,' said Yuanzhe Cai, Parks Associates' director of broadband and gaming. 'If executed correctly, game advertising can provide a win-win solution for advertisers, developers and publishers, console manufacturers, game portals, and gamers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 2012 More

In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 2012

Comments Filter:

  • Blizzard is missing out... (Score:3, Funny)

    by 3p1ph4ny ( 835701 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:15AM (#19689315) Homepage
    I've never seen a night elf drinking a Coke.

    • Re:Blizzard is missing out... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:47AM (#19689661)
      I will never purchase a game with ingame adverting. No one should. You bought the game, paid good money for it, and now you have to pay again by looking at banal advertising. The sherlock that thought this up should be taken out and shot, regardless of the amount of revenue.

      What I'm curious about is if there is a way to block ingame advertisements with some program or filtering mechanism. Ad companies are responsible for the funding of malware to a large degree. If it weren't for the ads these adware makers wouldn't have an income. We should be suing the advertisers directly instead of letting our kids become bombarded with constant ads.

      A computer game is immersive. We don't need to be bothered by advertisers trying to sell us something. These people are the falling off edge of stupidity. They all should be barred from anything computers.
      • There will probably be programs that will replace the textures, images, and video that contain the ads with other stuff. Unless they're going to show streaming ads, which may make it a little more difficult. Although, you could just make a hack to bypass the streaming altogether and get data from the local disk. Even if you can get My advice is to just not buy the game. If you buy the game, then they assume you are seeing the adverts, and will continue to produce more trash like this. If nobody buys th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mulvane ( 692631 )
          Is it really so bad if you are playing a game, stroll into the town and see a McDonalds sign hangin on Ye' Ol Tavern? I mean really..Its not like someone will have adverts between cut scenes or something. Its like in the movies, the actor picks up and drinks a coke or pepsi. That is advertising..
          • If it's supposed to be Ye Old Tavern, set in medieval times, then yes, it really is that bad when you see a McDonald's sign. It's really hard to suspend your disbelief when you are seeing things that are so out of place. That's why you don't see Shakespeare actors wearing Nike shoes and Tommy Hillfigger sweaters. It ruins the appeal of the play. If you see an actor pick up a coke in a movie set in the present day, then it's not that bad. However, if you see Bilbo drinking a can of Coke, then you start

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bit01 ( 644603 )

            Is it really so bad if you are playing a game, stroll into the town and see a McDonalds sign hangin on Ye' Ol Tavern?

            Yes. You seem to think the advertising will be limited and "tasteful". You couldn't be more wrong. You just need to look at TV to see that.

            And even if it was limited in-game advertising is a just a fraudulent shell game to hide how much you're really paying for a product.

            ---

            "Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kimos ( 859729 )

        I will never purchase a game with ingame adverting. No one should. You bought the game, paid good money for it, and now you have to pay again by looking at banal advertising. The sherlock that thought this up should be taken out and shot, regardless of the amount of revenue.

        Right. That's why TV has no commercials and DVD movies have no previews before them or product placement in the film...

        Advertisers will continue to inject ads wherever they can, and people will continue to buy the content anyway. M

      • Re:Blizzard is missing out... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Puff of Logic ( 895805 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @11:57AM (#19690651)

        I will never purchase a game with ingame adverting. No one should.
        I'm right there with you in terms of dislike for in-game advertising. However, I'm a big Enemy Territory fan and was really excited about the new Enemy Territory game coming soon until I discovered that they intend to use in-game advertising. Now I'm stuck: do I forgo a game I was really looking forward to, or do I get it anyway and just try to ignore the ads? It's not like I have a moral objection to in-game advertising, it just annoys me.

        Two other points irritate me. The first is that the additional revenue brought in by in-game advertising doesn't seem to be offset by a decreased purchase cost or increased quality, so the gamer is really getting less value (presence of annoyance) because of this practice. The second point is that there is evidently an entire industry of people who spent their lives irritating the hell out of people for the purposes of commercial "messages" but I am unable to kick them in the nuts. If they are able to make my day less pleasant, I should be able to reciprocate!
      • I see a lot of people complaining "I will never purchase a game with advertising", etc.

        What if the advertising paid for the game?

        For instance, that $37 per person in ad revenue spent on television is a heck of a lot more than a WoW subscription. Its also a lot easier to manage since there are maybe a few hundred large advertisers as opposed to collecting from millions of inidividuals.

        Blizzard could earn, say, $20 per household, by having a Night Elf drink coke and a Hood blimp hanging above Thunder Bluff.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          Yeah, game adds are great, I really love those adds you see while the game loads up, especially after the game has just crashed while you were playing it, yeah I really love watching that add again and again. I really doubt that the company who is paying for that add really wants me to do what the experience makes me feel like doing, sure I want to visit them, but the last thing on my mind is buying their BS products, I have far more destructive feelings going at that time.

      • It really depends on the game... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Akaihiryuu ( 786040 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @06:51PM (#19695673)
        If the ads are appropriate for the setting the game is in, then they become part of the environment of the game. For example, seeing real-life ads on billboards in a game like Grand Theft Auto does not detract from the game at all. It takes place in a modern day city, and you would expect to see such billboards if you were really there. However, placing things like this in a futuristic or fantasy game would destroy it.
  • I will not play any game with in-game advertising, especially if it doesn't lower the cost. I encourage everyone to follow me.
    • Money has to come from somewhere. If developers can earn money by selling advertising, it means they will be able to spend more time polishing up their projects at the end of the development cycle instead of having to push the product out the door early to start getting money from sales.

      Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games. Will some publishers abuse advertising for quick profit? Of course. But don't come out with something like BOYCOTT ALL GAMES WITH ADVERTISING KEK

      • Re: In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 201 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ls -la ( 937805 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:39AM (#19689581) Journal

        Money has to come from somewhere. If developers can earn money by selling advertising, it means they will be able to spend more time polishing up their projects at the end of the development cycle instead of having to push the product out the door early to start getting money from sales.
        So why are advertisers so eager to pay for advertising in a game that's not finished yet?

        Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games.
        In an ideal world. If you find one, let me know where.

        Will some publishers abuse advertising for quick profit? Of course.
        Some here meaning most or almost all?

        developers need money in order to do what they love.
        I know that quite well, but what makes you think the big companies that are going to get most of the money from in-game advertising are going to share it with the devs?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by EMeta ( 860558 )
          The trick, I think, will be when someone puts together a adwords-esque enterprise for game advertising. Portable, applicable only to whatever setting it's in, and with a very low overhead so indie developers can attach it to a project and recoup costs.

          Because of course there are ways to make it work, once the stupid stuff has been flushed out. And the vast majority of Americans have enjoyed innumerable hours of entertainment provided mostly free to them because of the availability of advertising money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Smight ( 1099639 )
        I think overall it will mean more rushed titles.

        You've got to get that game out the door so you can get a new batch of advertisers for your next game.
        Look at what advertising has done for television. It used to be one company would fund a show entirely and they might break from the show once or twice an hour to tell you about that one product(how do you think soap operas got their name?)
        Now you're lucky if you get 30 minutes of showtime in an hour block and even during the shows they feel the need to hav

      • Re: In-Game Advertising To Top $800 Million By 201 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Buddy_DoQ ( 922706 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:45AM (#19689645) Homepage
        How about this novel concept: Make a killer game, and sell a lot of copies!

        When was the last time Zelda or Mario needed Nike/Coke/Dodge ads to make money? I'm with the parent, screw'em. I don't want them, and I don't need them. There are plenty of great games to play that don't make me feel dirty or insulted. So many recent games lost sales from me and my circle for in-game ads, such as Crackdown earlier this year. I enjoyed the demo, but after a single distraction (large dodge truck ad) I was done. Battlefield 2142 is another fine example, might as well re-name the sucker adware42, and it has no business on my PC.

        If developers want to see my money, all they have to do is a make a great game, and leave all that "sponsored by" crap in the splash screen or on the box. You can't even begin to imagine my disappointment in last weeks news with Quake:ET, a game I've been following for years...

        The bottom line is, if your development cost are so high that you have to start selling ad space in your game world, then maybe it's time you evaluate your development processes, and the game in question; for something has gone horribly wrong.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
          The problem is making the ads actually fit into the game. For instance, in Super Monkey Ball, the bananas have Dole stickers on them. Every single one of them. You don't even notice it all the time, and it's kind of funny to see them on there. It doesn't really detract from the game in any way. However, working ads into games like Mario or Zelda would probably be impossible without it looking like blatant advertising. Other games might do very well. ExciteTruck could easily have trucks with real comp

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Nossie ( 753694 )
            "Just as Need For Speed has always had real cars"

            One problem I see with this alone is that car manufacturers are not willing to put their car in a game if it has realistic/any damage modelling ...

            I'm not saying NFS is like that, I haven't played them in ages...

            • One problem I see with this alone is that car manufacturers are not willing to put their car in a game if it has realistic/any damage modelling ...

              I've always considered that position something of a double standard, given that they seem to have no problem being featured in action movies. For what it's worth, NFS Carbon does have an option for damage modeling, but it's visual only. The Ridge Racer games - all of whose cars are made up in-house from whole cloth - do not have damage modeling, but there it s

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Nossie ( 753694 )
                Its a shame... damage modelling is something I really love...

                nothing more amusing than causing a 20 car pile up on the raceway when you are bored :)

                then again maybe that's just me and my sick sense of humour
            • I remember hearing about that with NFS. One car company (Ferrari I think) wouldn't let them put their cars in the game if they had damage modelling, so they didn't have it, I think this was NFS3. NFS4 had damaging, but no Ferrari's. Personally, I think the driving games are a lot better if they have the damage simulation, because it stops opponents, cpu or otherwise, from ramming into you to run you off the track, and suffering no consequences.
        • Regarding Battlefield 2142: I've never found the in game advertising to be problematic, or even obtrusive. The only thing I've seen it used for so far is tasteful advertising for the expansion pack (by showcasing the new EU and PAC vehicles) or Intel CPU advertising, which while a little more out of place, is sometimes humorous ("Core 2 Duo: Still good after 139 years" for instance), doesn't detract from the game play either. A lot of people seem to hate on in-game adds, but as long as they're well done,

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cerberus7 ( 66071 )

        ...you don't understand that developers need money in order to do what they love.

        Right, they do need money. That's why they SELL GAMES. Now they're trying to sell games AND sell advertising, cashing in twice on the same thing. Their customers pay for the game, they don't want to pay for the game and the commercials. If the games were discounted or free, sure, advertising might work as a business model. So far, it doesn't look like that's where the game publishers that want to use in-game advertising are going. It's been quite blatantly a quick-cash-in move, which we gamers tend

      • Money has to come from somewhere.

        You're right. That's why I have to pay $60 for games now opposed to the $50 five years ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
        You can't just throw money at a programming project to make it be done faster; videogames will still take just as long (if not longer in some cases) to complete as they always do. No amount of money can make a game be finished faster. I'd rather a game be delayed a few months and end up great than see it be released too early and require patches and still be buggy as hell *coughBattlefield2cough*...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        >>>Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games.

        This is such uninformed BS. Budgets, deadlines and industry standards will not change - from pure profit-generating point of view (only view that matters) customers already willing to accept low-quality products and there is no payoff in spending more on increased quality.

        In-game advertising is about generating sustained revenue and increasing profits. It is *not* about making better games.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bit01 ( 644603 )

        Please stop spreading this lie. Most advertising is a shell game that pays for nothing. Instead, we're paying twice over, once in time attention to watch/avoid the ad and second in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad. And please, no nonsense about "well I'm not paying twice"; on average you are.

        In game advertising is merely way to fraudulently hide from the game purchaser the true price of the game. It should be illegal.

        Your hand waving about how it will improve the quality of the game

    • Ho How does one "especially not play" a game?
    • It depends on the game. If I was playing a game set in modern society, like GTA, and I see a Coke billboard over a street, I wouldn't think anything of it. But if I ever have to give my Final Fantasy characters "coke potions" or something I will stab someone.
    • Without the money coming from in-game advertising...you may not have the chance to play the game anyway. The extra finances gained through advertising can reduce the risk factor in making a videogame. If companies can make more of a return on cash cow games perhaps they'll have money to make more innovative or obscure (financial risky) videogames.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Nossie ( 753694 )
        "Without the money coming from in-game advertising...you may not have the chance to play the game anyway."

        Then so what? What would we miss if we never knew they existed?

        That's the same BS reason said about record companies.. If they didn't exist there wouldn't be any music!! of course there would be bloody music we just wouldn't be forced to put up with the same re-mixed crap over and over and over and over again!

        I would LOVE the games industry to collapse again like it did in the 80's (some people sugges

        • Then so what? What would we miss if we never knew they existed?

          That's the same BS reason said about record companies.. If they didn't exist there wouldn't be any music!! of course there would be bloody music we just wouldn't be forced to put up with the same re-mixed crap over and over and over and over again!

          We're missing a lot of things that "don't exist." The real BS here is that without some kind of money it's damn hard to get your game/music out there. Can you front the money for a recording studio session? Do you even know how much they charge an hour?? I'm as tired as you are of the same old shit that is fed to us by the mega corps, but if an indie developer/band needs some kind of sponsor in order to deliver true entertainment, i'm all for it.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Nossie ( 753694 )
            "We're missing a lot of things that "don't exist." "

            Yeah we'd all love a space elevator.

            "The real BS here is that without some kind of money it's damn hard to get your game/music out there."

            Easy answer number one? EA goes bankrupt... playing field is suddenly a lot more open. The best games dont have the best graphics, and the majority of the all time greatest were made in peoples bedrooms.

            "Can you front the money for a recording studio session? Do you even know how much they charge an hour?? "

            No and I wou
    • agreed 100%. Nor will I ever put adverts in my own games. I haven't even tried the demo of BF2142, despite loving BF2, because its widely known to be full of ads.
    • What if the advertising made the game free, not just lowered the cost?
  • Well done in game ads are more effective and less distracting. The next step is for them to lower the price of the games, or give better support/updates/content because of advertising revenue.

    Yeah, I know I'm a bit crazy with that last part, it would just be nice to see a bit more benefit trickle down to the consumer.
    • The problem is that the reason that they are resorting to ads is because games are becoming more expensive to make, and yet people want them to stay the same price, or become even cheaper. So while it would be nice for games to come down in price because of these ads, it won't happen. As long as people want games with more complexity and cost than the previous generation, prices aren't going to come down.
    • I have a better idea. How about we pay $50 and we can have the privilege of sitting and watching 40 hours of uninterrupted commercials.
      • Well IM sure if you want to do that someone will cater to you.

        Oh, sorry you were trying to be a smartass.

        Games will have adverts. I don't like it, you don't like it, but I would rather have something innocuous and unobtrusive as opposed to splash screens I have to look at 10 seconds every time I start the game. What is more aggravating, being forced to watch the previews before the movie or the product placements you see in the movie.

  • Law to make publishers put it on box (Score:3, Interesting)

    by svendsen ( 1029716 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:20AM (#19689365)
    There needs to be a law that makes game companies put right on the back on their box in bold print at size 12pt if the game has in game advertising. If a game has in game advertising I won't buy it unless it makes sense (as in billboards when driving vs. the sky being turned into one big brand image).
    • Then they need one for movies with product references and blatant plugs.
    • If the ad placement makes a different in your buying it, then a government warning stuck on the box won't make too much of a difference. It won't tell you if it something over the top (like the loud movies that played on loop in Anarchy Online) or something senseable (like billboard ads in a sports game). You will have to read a review to see if ad placement is an issue. I usually try to read at least 2 reviews on a game before I actually buy it, so for me some government mandated warning label will just
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • A law huh? How about this - do a quick search on the net before plunking down $50-60 on a new game. Or, if you do get snookered and get a game with advertising in it, simply don't buy games from that company anymore.

      Is this really something we want to get lawmakers involved in? You know... the same lawmakers that seem to think that video games turn normal children into rampaging, sniper-wielding death-dealers after a few intense afternoons of gaming?

  • Less Spending because... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:41AM (#19689601)
    "'Advertising in electronic games had an average monthly household expenditure of less than 50 cents in 2006, while broadcast TV was at $37, meaning advertisers are not using the gaming medium to its full potential,' said Yuanzhe Cai

    Jeez, you think? Maybe it's because there are many, many more poeple watching TV than playing video games. In fact, I think that number is not too far off from it's appropriate scale.

    Let's run some figures... Gaming age is about 15 to 35. Lifespan is about 70 years, and we start watching TV about age 5 now. Not many girls, and some boys aren't interested in gaming -at all-, and let's suppose that 50% of the people in that age range, but there is hardly anyone that doesn't watch TV.

    So if we pull 2 average people from each year from 5 to 70, we have approximately 130 tv watchers, and 20 gamers. So the ratio is 6.5 to 1 or so. So the $.50 should be more like $5.50 or so. The article makes it sound like it should be up at $37 per person.

    In short: There's a ton of spin on this using numbers that don't -mean- anything in the current context.

    • Not many girls, and some boys aren't interested in gaming -at all-, and let's suppose that 50% of the people in that age range, but there is hardly anyone that doesn't watch TV. Lots of girls like gaming. Have you seen the DS section lately? Someone has to be buying all those girly games based on Hannah Montana and fluffy pets.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ElleyKitten ( 715519 )

      Not many girls, and some boys aren't interested in gaming -at all-, and let's suppose that 50% of the people in that age range, but there is hardly anyone that doesn't watch TV.
      Lots of girls like gaming. Have you seen the DS section lately? Someone has to be buying all those girly games based on Hannah Montana and fluffy pets.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Aladrin ( 926209 )
        Yup, sure have. They don't sell nearly as well as the boy games do. I guessed 50% because I think there are fewer girl-gamers than there are guy-non-gamers.

        As the AC below noted, there is a -LOT- of guesswork in my numbers. The idea is to show that that the article is all spin and no basis, not to provide the advertising industry a number to shoot for.
        • Heres a recent rough sell list put together by NPD group:

          1. Nancy Drew: The White Wolf Of Icicle Creek - Her Interactive
          2. The Sims 2 H&M Fashion Stuff - Electronic Arts
          3. World Of Warcraft - Blizzard
          4. World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade - Blizzard
          5. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars - Electronic Arts
          6. Starcraft: Battle Chest - Blizzard
          7. The Sims 2 Seasons - Electronic Arts
          8. Battlefield 2142 - Electronic Arts
          9. The Sims 2 Deluxe - Electronic Arts
          10. Warcraft: Battle Chest - Blizzard
  • Give me a break. People are fleeing/blocking/ignoring as best as possible the bulk of advertisements
    thrown at them. Pundits have been predicting a shake-up in the video game industry for a while now.

    Straw? Camel? Back?

    We'll see...

  • I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @10:53AM (#19689743) Journal
    In Elder Scrolls 5, you'll be able to buy Coke and Pepsi alongside "Cheap Wine," mead, and other RPG beverages. And one of the best items will be the Under-Armour Shirt of Strength.

    Halo 4 will have Cheef trade in his warthog for a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, and have him exlaim various crap while driving such as "man, the handling on this thing is amazing!"

    Final Fantasy XIV will replace every potion with various flavors of Vitamin Water, and every Esper will be replaced by LeBron James and Greg Oden and each summon will be followed by a screen saying "This summon was brought to you by NBA on TNT Thursdays."

    While Forza Motorsport 3 is loading a track, a teaser of Apocalypto will play. If the Nürburgring is being loaded, it will play the full trailer and possibly the "making of" video.

    I can't wait.

    • In Elder Scrolls 5, you'll be able to buy Coke and Pepsi alongside "Cheap Wine," mead, and other RPG beverages.
      It's worse than that. At the first bar, you'll probably get "Coke, no Pepsi" and, at the next bar, you'll probably get "Pepsi, no Coke". This, of course, will lead you into "The Great Cola War" where you'll have to pick the right side in order to be awarded some talisman of great power.
  • I remember when Seinfeld created the concept of product placement on TV - he would open up the cabinet and pull out a box of Cheerios and eat some. It's much more realistic...it's something we would do. We wouldn't pull out a box of Churrios. If done right, in-game advertizing can actually make a game more realistic...if, for example, you pass by a movie theater and see real movies advertized, or go up to a vending machine and see real products, or drive past a McDonalds. So I'm all for it, if they do it r

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bat_Masterson ( 250306 )
      Did you believe them when they said, since cable TV has subscription fees, there won't be any need to advertise during the shows...
    • Oh Please, Seinfeld didn't create anything save for mediocre comedy. In Program advertising goes back decades before Seinfeld was even born. It was well known that only Philip Morris cigarettes were smoked on the I Love Lucy [wikipedia.org] show. So much so, that the writers were banned from using the word "Lucky" in any scripts. Father Knows Best [wikipedia.org] only ate General Foods.

      Before that it was incredibly routine to have products featured in various [wikipedia.org] radio [wikipedia.org] programs [wikipedia.org].
      And before that plays were known to work in various form
  • Great, so how long till I see adds for Viagra while I play Forza Motorsports 2?
  • I find it difficult to believe anyone can predict anything in the computer industry five years out. Add to the equation trying to understand what a set of people (gamers) will accept? That all adds up to a wild, whack-ass guess in my book.
  • In-game advertising works in a variety of genres, while it doesn't in others. It is all about whether it fits in with the game or not. In some cases, I wish there was more in-game advertising -- take MLB2K7 for example. All the stadiums have advertising for just a couple companies (including the developer and Progressive auto insurance). I would much rather see authentic ads (such as WB Mason and the big Bud Light ad at Yankee Stadium) than I would ads for the developer or one or two companies that paid

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by neminem ( 561346 )
      "If you're in a FPS and you're in an urban setting, then maybe a few billboards would add to the realism -- but if every wall is plastered with ads then it takes away from the realism and the game suffers."

      Why would it? After all, if you walk into downtown LA, say, pretty much everything ever is an ad. So why not in a game? ...I'm pretty glad I don't live in downtown LA, can you tell?

  • Advertising = end of gaming (Score:3, Informative)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday June 29, 2007 @12:13PM (#19690839)
    In-game advertising is dangerous reality that all gamers need to face. Titles with advertising are not any cheaper of feature-full than titles without it, its all about increasing profits and don't let marketing promises of 'extra features' or 'extended support' confuse you. Its all about extra profit.

    In the world where in-game advertising become commonplace you will see such undesirable things as mandatory minimum loading times, mandatory internet connection (even in single player games) in order to load advertising clips, visual field pollution and distractions. Ads are attention-grabbing by definition, so don't fool yourself into thinking that it won't that bad. We will have full-screen video clips in no time.

    Advertising is really expensive to you as a viewer - it takes *your* precious time that you have to spend on leisure activities. It is not ' just little bit of your time' it's A LOT of precious little time you have reserved for relaxing and playing games. It will be just like TV - where it is all crap and choke-full with 'sponsor messages'. All games will be changed to fit ads, just like TV where all programming is geared to fit frequent advertisement interruptions.

    Real danger of in-game advertising is that game companies no longer in the business of making games, they are now in the business of selling advertisements and gamers no longer customers but product instead. As a result game studios will no longer be about making games but about showing most adds to most people.
  • I love hockey-stick revenue plans.
  • In game adverstising can add to a games atmosphere. Actual Pepsi/Coke machines could make the game seem more "real". The problem is developers don't do this at all. Example 1: Battlefield 2142. Why the hell are there billboards for Intel Processors in the fucking countryside of France?
  • In fact I barely notice, I've played a few games with ingame adds for a while but I can't tell you about a single one that I remember having seen. I don't really mind if it benefits me like papers/magazines that are free because they are advert funded - of course after so many years of adverts I manage to mentally block almost everything to the point that you can ask me about an add on the previous page in a magazine and I won't have seen it so I guess it's easy for me not to care.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close