In-Game Advertising with Torque, huh?

#21 In Enter the Matrix, you can get a Powerade off a table in the first level and you have the ability to dodge bullets and have unlimited Focus.

#22

Quote:I don't mind it (advertising) in games where it makes sense, like racing games and games in a city or populated modern and futuristic setting. Anywhere else would look really silly and ruin the mood of the game like in a fantasy or historical setting for instance. I don't think anyone who knows what they are doing would allow advertising where it doesn't fit.

When I said that, I was only thinking about things like billboards and signs on buildings. Josh' approach twards in game advertising with MoM, while I feel it still kills the mood of the game, is cool because it's a way of annoying people to purchase the full version if they like the game enough. I like that. It's basically a commercial just like any TV show would have. I wouldn't like it though if I paid for the game already and it still does that.

But yeah, I like Burnout 3 a lot. I've seen NFSU2, Toger Woods, and some other game billboards on the sides of the road. I found it interesting. NFSU2's Cingular HUD display was a little too in your face for my taste though, but nothing that bothered me a great deal. It was just cheesy. I did like seeing the Best Buy and other real world stores though. It made the game seem more real.

#23 I think it's fine, especially if you have a game which models a real city. In this case having bill boards and bus stops with posters and adverts etc would add to the game. This is especially true because it would bring that sense of emersion that is so lacking in many games out there.

The point at which the adverts fail is when you have a coke advert on every bill board in the game. This then starts to shatter the illusion.

#24 I disagree totally .. most people like pay to play games for the community and enviroment without the rude constant reminder TV offers ;that cash fuels the real world.

If you had a game where you competed creating ads and thus gained some sort of status exp or money (ficticious) then player created ads may have a place other wise if I want to see an ad all i have to do is change the channel on the tv im sure ill find one

#25 I don't like the idea.. It reeks of greed and "Big business" trying to profit from an industry they have no real business being in. Plus I see enough ads plastered everywhere else to make me sick of them! Can I watch a damn TV show or listen to a radio without commercials? The only way I would support this is if car companies started to pay developers to use their cars in driving games, instead of the other way around. Or if a company adverts it's other games, fine. But when we start pushing "bubblicious" in our puzzle game to get an extra $0.05 per copy and free gum... I'd say something is wrong. Hopefully enough people will still buy the games without ads and Spyware Inside(TM).

#26 I gotta agree with some others here when i say i do not want advertisting in game i had to buy.

Could you imagine buying a new King Kong DVD and it have commercials in it while you're trying to watch? I think it's the same thing.

#27 Wow. I'm kind of speechless. The anti-advertising has reached the height of absurdity.

Look, here's the reality: So called "AAA titles" game cost $10-20 MILLION dollars to develop, and that cost is only going up. Hundreds of people working for more than a year -- maybe as long as three years to produce a cutting edge game.

Even with a $50 pricetag, the odds of recouping the costs are pretty slim. Think about it: A game that retails for $50 might, under an AMAZINGLY GREAT publishing deal land the develop $30 per unit shipped. If it costs $10m to develop a game, that's 333,333 copies just to BREAK EVEN. Add to that the ongoing cost of running an MMO and things just go downhill. The cost of MARKETING a game is increasing too given the increasing competition -- due primarily to publishers and developers taking on bigger risks in producing a game. It's an ugly vicious cycle, but it is the reality of the game industry.

There are three possible scenarios: 1) The game will not make a profit. This is the most likely scenario. 2) The game will make a slim profit. 3) The game will make a substantial profit.

Let's consider scenario number three for a second. Why would a Big Evil Corporation shove ads into a game that's gonna make a fortune? Why to line their fatcat pockets of course! This viewpoint is just frighteningly simplistic.

The game industry has reached the point of being like the movie industry: One very profitable film subsidizes 10 failures. Net result? A modest profit at best, and a bankrupt studio or publisher at worst.

Adding ads in-game isn't about making a couple cigar-smoking fatcats a little bit richer, it's about taking risk out of the project. It means you have a revenue stream even if you're forced to give the game away because people won't buy it. (Heck, even giving the game away is risky -- you'd be amazed at how unwilling people are to take something that's given for free!)

And to top it all off you make it sound like it's some insignificant amount of cash for something that will completely destroy the experience. Neither point is true: First off, Massive Inc -- a purveyor of in-game advertising claims to be able to pay $1-2 per unit shipped. That's pretty significant! And let's not forget that the developer has a vested interest in making sure that the advertising does NOT interfere with the experience because otherwise nobody will buy it, and they won't get paid anything for all that in-game advertising.

How much does it change the economics to get paid an extra $2 per unit shipped? Well for a $10m title, it means you need to ship about 20,000 fewer units to break even. That may not sound like a big deal but that's more than most "successful" indie games will ever sell. And how intrusive is it? Let's see, so far we've got things like racing games where you pass by billboards advertising a product, just like real-life -- and racing games tend to be sold on how realistic an experience they provide. What's so bad about that?

What about an indie pushing a game out with in-game advertising and getting $1 per unit shipped? Well, for an indie doing a downloable game that might be enough to be able to distribute the game for FREE. A tenth the unit price but maybe 20x as much distribution if you do things right. Maybe, just MAYBE that indie will actually succeed in breaking even!

Are you going to see ads for Bubblicious in a puzzle game? Well, it depends on two things: 1) how much money there is to be made from making the investment of actually producing the game (and consequently how much competition there is), and 2) how much consumers are willing to pay for casual games. If casual games go the way of hardcore games with consumers constantly demanding higher and higher production values, resulting in higher and higher production costs -- without a corresponding increase in unit sales or unit price -- then yes, you will see that kind of advertising because there simply won't be any other way to produce the games and survive.

Fortunately for us, it seems casual gamers don't much care about the production values of the game -- witness the success of the million and one gaming websites that offer cheesy little flash games (ad supported, but not in-game ads). For the time being anyway. Let's not forget that the whole reason we have this bloody arms race in the hardcore world is because better graphics and sound (higher production values) offer companies a way to differentiate their products in a saturated market. If you're on Yahoo and you've got a choice to download Yet Another Puzzle game with really pretty screenshots, or Yet Another Puzzle Game with relatively bland screenshots, which one are you going to choose? I know, the standard retort is: Well don't make "Yet Another Puzzle Game", do something DIFFERENT but then you have the ADDED burden of convincing the consumer to take a chance on your weird little concept. If anything, pretty graphics become even MORE important because they take people's minds off the fact that this thing they are presented with is strange, and alien, and potentially a massive waste of their time.

-JF

#28 I don't plan on spending 20 million dollars on a game, Only staff and middleware cost absurd amounts.
If game making was back the way it was a while ago, they'd only have up to 20 people max working on them at one time. They spend their money on a single engine, no middleware, and a hand full of workers that would need regular payments.

When the game was in the completing stages, they would hire the expensive voice actors and stuff so they could keep the costs down. But, its all so much more expensive. Passive ads in gaming would be a great way to catch up on the bank repayments, unless they're too intrusive. Billboards already in-game would display real products rather than fake ones, and having real brand names on drink cans and stuff.

#29 Heh, my wife and I just got into a heated debate about this just last night. She's of the opinion that ad's are a good thing because she is of the "bottom-line" mentality. I, on the other hand, am of the "games are art" mentality and steadfastly refuse to turn my art into an ad campaign for Taco Bell.

Advertising has already infiltrated every single aspect of my life without my permission and with the inclusion of ad's at the beginning of movies, I am now paying for advertisers to reach me. The only reason the marketing companies are now trying to slime their way into games is because the industry has surpassed the film industry in $$.

EA, Nintendo, Blizzard, Relic and all of the others did not become top dogs in the game industry by corrupting their games with commercials (no matter how well disguised). So the comments about marketing reducing costs and making games more accessible is nonsense.

I know, I'm an idealist. I like it that way.

#30 @Jason: First off, it's NOT nonsense. EA, Nintendo, et al became top dogs in an era when games were cheaper to produce. The costs have steadily been *rising*. Back in the "good old days", games didn't cost $10m+ to produce. Nowadays they do. The reason for this is that more detailed graphics requires more labor to produce. In a game like Quake, probably one artist could make all the models, one artist could make all the levels and one artist could make all the textures. That's pretty easy when your "model" has maybe 15 triangles composing its head. Nowadays game companies believe they have to have better graphics than the competition to compete -- and they're usually right. It may be easy to come up with a character model with a 15 triangle head, but it's a whole lot more effort (and time) to make a character model with a 500 triangle head. And instead of 128x128 textures now you need 1024x1024 textures, AND bumpmaps. So instead of one of each you now need 10 of each, or more. If I'm making a triple-A game, I need more than just great gameplay these days for my game to get noticed among the massive amount of competition.

As for marketing companies trying to "slime" their way into games -- the marketing companies are fulfilling a need, not creating it. Massive and DoubleFusion wouldn't exist if game developers didn't feel they needed in-game advertising. And they feel they need in-game advertising because the economics of producing a game TODAY are exactly as I described above.

If you want to produce a game as a work of art, be my guest. It's *your* game and you can do what you want, but very few games are artistic endeavors -- and many of the ones that ARE, are still meant to be commercialized and sold as a product. You won't be able to produce much of a game though without a *team* of people helping you. If you can find skilled people who ALSO want to do it as an artistic endeavor, great! Produce your work of art, and give it away (can't SELL it, that would compromise the artistic integrity by introducing commercial pressure to the creative process!). Most of the people I deal with however want CASH. Composers. Artists. Coders. They recognize that their work has *value* and that they have to eat. If I want to work with them, I need to pay them. If I need to pay them, I need to get paid. As long as I have a hard time convincing people to buy my game, I have no choice but to consider advertising if I want to create the best game I possibly can.

-JF

#31 @Jon: And this is why I will not be the CEO of my own company. I acknowledge the need to pay the team and the costs of making a game. I'm already $800 some-odd into the game we're making and all I have are some screenshots of rough draft models. And I'm not paying salaries, yet.

I'm also anti-publisher, but at least a publisher performs a service for the robbery they inflict on game developers (taking their IP and the majority of their profits if any). Advertising doesn't. With few exceptions (sports games, racing games, etc.), ads are not condusive to a game, nor are they providing a service to the developer (marketing the game, pressing discs, getting shelf space, etc.). Instead, they see an opportunity to spam more people for a comparatively small price...though I am guessing at the "comparatively small price" part.

I know money makes the world go round and money is the root of all evil and...well, I digress. I am an idealist and a stubborn one at that, when it comes to this particular topic. So I will not be a good debate on this topic and I should never have offered my extremely biased view on it.

I do concede that money is necessary for a game to be made and that the game industry has become a victim of its own success and when something makes large sums of money the advertising will be climbing over themselves to get a piece of it. I will also concede that no great work of art had an advertising campaign attached to it (minus the Church paintings).

You make many very valid points and well thought out statements. You are absolutely correct in that the advertisers are simply following the market. I am simply an idealist and having expressed my opinion will retire to my Happy Place where games are created for the love of making games.

#32 Jason, if EA isnt like that, then please explain to me why on my EA title of NCAA Football, I am constantly told how the score and or game or the overview of the last play was brought to me by pontiac?

#33 @Jason: The advertisers *do* perform an incredibly valuable service for the developer: They mitigate risk. Mitigating risk is the essence of running a successful business.

And as for biblical quotes: It's the *love* of money that's the root of all evil, not money itself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_misquotations


-JF

#34 @Robert: I mentioned sports games as being one of the exceptions

@Jon: Damn, I missed the quote. ;), even corrected it still holds, since that (IMHO) is the basis behind the ad decisions. But, again, I state that I cannot be the CEO of my company as I am not a bottom line thinker, that's why I have my wife running it. I just don't love money that much. It's a neat tool. Definitely helps when it comes time to eat and pay bills, but it just isn't a motivating factor me.

But once again, I withdraw from what was a previously good discussion, before I inserted my idealistic views into it.

#35 @Jason: My experience in having cofounded a company of non-trivial size is that it's not so much that CEOs and such *love* money -- it's more they *fear it's absence*. It's just a means to an end. It's like food is to an animal. It nourishes and gives it the energy to continue living -- and the animal is certainly happy when food is abundent -- but there's no particular "love". I think in the case of CEOs/executives that's because there's rarely a *direct* correlation between revenue and individual compensation. There are quarterly/annual whatever bonuses based on how the company does but a $50k bonus is $50k whether you exceed your highest target by 10% or 1000%. If anything I'd say that for small companies CEOs just want to see the company thrive and for larger companies CEOs just want to "win". Business is their Halo. The "bottom line" mentality is all about survival and -- you guessed it -- risk management. When someone brings up a concern that doesn't directly concern the bottom line (a concern like "artistic integrity") the CEO has to assess the tangibility of the concern, and how it relates to the company's survival. Something like "artistic integrity" is an intangible concern that one could sink a lot of money into but at the end of the day all you've done is reduce the amount of cash the company has available to weather the next storm that comes along (and there is ALWAYS another storm, or slump around the corner).

It may seem like companies are just greedy greedy greedy, trying to drive up profit margins so they can have more cash but that cash simply doesn't wind up in the pockets of the individuals running the company (well, salary and bonuses and such, but it's not a direct correlation). It gets reinvested in growth (to mitigate certain risks such as being crushed by competition or being focused on an area that dries up, or what have you), or it gets stored up in a "war chest" that the company can use as a buffer when times are lean.

-JF

#36 Of course, that philosophy goes right out the window when you bring up Enron or any Oil Company, again I digress. You are right...my wife read this thread and gave me an earful of I told you so's. hehe

My basic philosophy will not change and I will continue to have the feeling that I need a shower after every business meeting. But, in the end, I too, will "sell out" my ideals in order to protect my employees. I just don't have to like it.

I wonder what the Taco Bell logo would look like in a Picasso painting? Or perhaps having David wear a Pizza Hut hat while holding a Pepsi? Maybe put a Blockbuster banner across the pyramids advertising the latest release of Jerry Springer to DVD... ;-)

#37 Jon is right about this whole breaking even thing. But to me this says something different. Yes costs are rising, almost only for the big companies. Things just aren't the same as they were years ago. With indie development growing fast, maybe the big corporations are losing their ground. An indie game doesn't need to sell millions of copies to break even or to be a "success" to the developer(s). Lots of business services can be contracted out and are affordable to small companies. Even high quality artwork and music. If games are not profitable enough without the in game advertising, maybe the big boys should rethink their strategy. To me it seems as if they are grasping at straws. They know they need more $ to support themselves, and maybe that $ just isn't there like it used to be. So they are seeking other ways to generate profits.

#38 It doesn't matter how much the game costs to develop.

The ONLY thing that matters is the benefit to the consumer.

Period.

If I buy a game, what does the advertising "get" me?

Back in the day, television programs were "sponsored by" a product. I still remember a few of those from when I was a kid. "Wild Kingdom" was sponsored by Mutual of Omaha. Funny, it's been something like 30 years and I still remember that. But the key was that you knew this show was "brought to you by" someone. There was the benefit, spelled out in a voice-over.

Now, when I find myself subjected to commercials in a video game, especially ones that break the immersion in the game in some way, what is the benefit. What makes me say, as a consumer, "Oh, that's okay then." Especially when other games don't rely on them? All I know is that THIS game is saddled with a bunch of annoying ads, but this other one isn't. What's the difference to ME?

If the game with the ads is 100% free, then I have the benefit. They may need to be spelled out to me, but I get it. The benefit is, hey, free game!

Now, there's definitely a place. *ANY* indie game developer should be promoting their website and sales of MORE GAMES through their game, but that tends to be more acceptable at the beginning or end of the game (like tucked away off of the main menu). Mid-game.... I don't know. It really comes down to what your audience will tolerate or appreciate.

But your focus MUST be on the player. If you piss them off and make them not want to play your game, your revenue is going to be drying up whether you rely on advertising or not.

#39 @Jay and Joe:
Amen my brothers!

#40 @Joe: You're absolutely right that the money "just isn't there". Basically, the "hard core" gamer segment is actually pretty small (in the U.S. at least), and you have a lot of big companies all fishing from that same pond. As a result it's become hyper-competitive, and they have to do whatever it takes to outsell the competition because that's the ONLY way to get enough sales to break even. Unfortunately it also means they have to spend more because pretty graphics are a PREREQUISITE for selling a big-ticket game these days. Yes, you also need gameplay that doesn't totally suck, and every so often gameplay results in a hit game, but usually gameplay alone isn't ENOUGH to sell a game. You need gameplay and better-than-every-other-game-out-there graphics. It's a vicious cycle, and it can't end well.

Nintendo seems to agree. They want to succeed not by crushing the competition but by making the marketplace larger. Casual games are doing a lot to make the market larger as well.

-JF