Opinion: In-Game Ads

Nxs · 08-30-2009, 03:55 PM

As some of you may have read, Massive Inc has signed or renewed several deals with major publishers including Electronic Arts, Activision, THQ, and Blizzard Entertainment for the 360 and PC. If not, here ya go: (via Gamasutra)

"Games that will feature Massive-facilitated ads this year include Activision's DJ Hero, Band Hero, Guitar Hero 5, and the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen DLC; EA's Madden NFL 10 and Need for Speed Shift; and THQ's UFC 2009 Undisputed.

Massive's agreement with Blizzard positions the firm as the sole advertising provider for Battle.net, the online Blizzard-only gaming service due for a significant relaunch upon the release of next year's StarCraft II.

The publishers will only be working with Massive for ads within Xbox 360 and PC versions of games, and not those for any other platforms. Several of the games that are part of these deals have already been released, but will see new ads starting in October.

Massive's JJ Richards called in-game ads "more efficient and less interruptive" than traditional television commercials, while being able to reach the male 18-34 year old demographic so coveted by advertisers."

Now, I know we have talked about this before but, with this new deal, I thought it was time to bring it up again and hear your thoughts.

I realize that ads are damn near inescapable and I am ok with it. I also realize that these guys are business' and need are here to make money. With production costs getting ever higher, I can understand the need to find more revenue, especially if the game does not do well.

Here is my problem, the publishers get more money due to the ads and we, the gamers, see no benefit from it. Are the games getting cheaper? No. Usually PC games are cheaper than their console counterparts. However, as you may have read, Modern Warfare 2 for the PC will be $60! And I am sure this trend will continue. Are we the gamers getting anything out of this? It does not seem like it. This deal is for the PC and the 360. 360 owners have to pay to play online already and I assume we will not be able to turn off these ads. Why do we have to pay to see ads?? It makes no sense to me at all. If you are going to bombard us with ads, make the service free! I refuse to pay for Live to play online when I have a PC that has let me do the same thing for free all these years and adding ads that I can't shut off just makes it worse. If they want me to pay for Live, make it so I can turn off the ads, everywhere! That alone is enough to make me pay for live. It also seems to me that they would add more options in the game instead of taking them out! Take Actiblizzard for example, StarCraft 2 will have no LAN play! Everything is done on the new Battlenet. I don't know about you but, this sucks! I don't want to have to go through some dumb ass service just to play a LAN game on a computer that is not ten feet from me! Diablo 3 was going to be a first day buy for me but, the way things are going, I really doubt that is going to happen. Taking things out of a game and forcing players to play through a service that requires an internet connection just blows! With all this ad revenue pouring in and money from WoW, there is no reason at all that Actiblizzard should be taking features from games that we are all used to having.

What it comes down to is: is there any benefit for us at all? I just don't see it. Sure, the extra revenue could provide us with better games or maybe *gasp* new and innovative games instead of the same crap rehashed a thousand times, but I really don't see this happening. All I see is these guys getting richer as we get bent over with not even as much as a nice dinner to show for it.

Gazz · 08-30-2009, 04:07 PM

I have no issues with free ad based games like Battlefield heroes, but ads in games you already paid for is beyond ridiculous. I am not even going to comment on the ads for 360, last time I played on xbox live (a week or 2 ago) I was flooded with it on a paid for network. Better communication with your friends my ass, if you can locate them inbetween all the banners that is.

*Gazz shivers when he thinks of what might come with the new BF2 patch

64705 · 08-30-2009, 04:53 PM

I see your point but to me it really depends how invasive the advertisements are and where they placed too. I agree with you that when in-game ads offer nothing to the game it can become very annoying. For instance, Valve have placed in-game ads to certain Counter-Strike 1.6 maps (i.e. de_dust2). I struggle to understand Valve's rationale for doing so, as the game is played on private servers and is no longer frequently patched and thus costs them nothing.

On the other hand, I think in-game advertising in GRID multiplayer works really well. They (Codemasters) use in-game ads on billboards and IMO it feels very authentic as virtually all real life pro racing events are plastered with advertisements. I'd go as far as saying it actually enhances the realism of the game!

Have a look at the below link and see another example of in-game ads for BF2 (highway tampa map): http://i32.tinypic.com/wmj7et.jpg
How do you feel about that? I don't mind it tbh, its quite subtle in the billboard. Its not like the "Intel" logo has been plastered on the tanks and jets etc.

Nxs · 08-30-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 64705

Have a look at the below link and see another example of in-game ads for BF2 (highway tampa map): http://i32.tinypic.com/wmj7et.jpg
How do you feel about that? I don't mind it tbh, its quite subtle in the billboard. Its not like the "Intel" logo has been plastered on the tanks and jets etc.

That really doesn't bother me as the map is a free download. Although, I think they could have came up with a better ad to grab the players attention.

Slaymate · 08-30-2009, 05:23 PM

If a game has ads in it then it should either be a Demo or a Discounted Version. It looks like I won't be playing NFS Shift after all

64705 · 08-30-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaymate

If a game has ads in it then it should either be a Demo or a Discounted Version. It looks like I won't be playing NFS Shift after all

How about if the developer promised (and delivered) free downloadable content and prompt game patches? I'm just wondering whether there could be a compromise between gamers and developers where the advertising revenue could pay for extra staff to create additional content (i.e. extra maps, missions etc.) and patch known problems much faster. I'd personally consider the option, but whether it would work or not is another thing (the developer/publishers would probably end up keeping all the ad revenues and screw the gamers buy not keeping their side of the bargain

)

Nxs · 08-31-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 64705

How about if the developer promised (and delivered) free downloadable content and prompt game patches? I'm just wondering whether there could be a compromise between gamers and developers where the advertising revenue could pay for extra staff to create additional content (i.e. extra maps, missions etc.) and patch known problems much faster. I'd personally consider the option, but whether it would work or not is another thing (the developer/publishers would probably end up keeping all the ad revenues and screw the gamers buy not keeping their side of the bargain

)

I'd be ok with this as long as it actually happened. Burnout Paradise did a pretty good job with this in giving some free and some pay DLC. Plus, this would help with the devs massive problem with the evil used game problem!