| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
I'd say that it's in how the ads are used and what they represent in the context of the game. Left Behind is a decent example: every billboard in the game is an EBGameStop ad. So your squad of holy warriors is on a soul-saving rampage through a city and every other building has a huge EBGameStop logo on it, with no other advertisements to be seen. Or Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter -- do they really have giant billboards advertising Axe body spray in Mexico City? Is Axe even sold in Mexico? And why would the billboard be in English? On the other hand, playing a Jimi Hendrix song in Rock Band on a controller shaped like a Fender Stratocaster has the potential to add something to the experience, making you feel more like Hendrix. Ads in sports games can be for more or less anything -- the variety of advertising printed on the boards in a hockey arena, for example, is remarkable. So the question isn't so much about what is being advertised as whether what's being advertised is reasonably realistic within the game's context. IMO, anyway. | |
That's a good point, Ajar, and kind of what I was getting at in the editorial. But is it purely contextual, or does it also tap into fantasy and escapism? I mean, if we're playing Ghost Recon AWF, and we see ads for Goya beans or something, does that have the same visceral feel as holding that Fender controller? Aren't we still going to be just a little bit annoyed that we're being sold beens, even if it's region-specific and appropriate? Even though we're more likely to buy beans than guitars? I think our occasional acceptance of marketing has more to do with wanting to be the kind of consumer that buys Fender guitars. I mean there's a good chance that we'll be more likely to buy a Fender Strat after playing with one in the game, but the chance that we'll become a consumer of musical equipment is still smaller than the chance that we'll buy deodorant. So in that way, the Axe ad is far more appropriate. | |
Sometimes advertising in a game can work and sometimes it can't. It's easy to compare the games industry to the film industry so I'd like to make this point. Placing an Astin Martin in a Bond film: fine. Having a billboard for Lynx Deoderant in a WWII film: not kosher. | |
I see your point Pottsy, but who makes the decision about what's acceptable and what's not? Does Bond have to drive an Astin, or can he drive an Audi? What about a Mustang or a Hyundai? And what do you do for all of the advertisers who want to give you money to help you make a better game, but just happen to not be Astin Martin? After all, Bond films have lots of product placement deals; the Rolex, Astin Martin, BMW etc. placements are just the ones they brag about on TV. | |
I just used the Aston Martin as an example. After all, it is probably the most well known car manufacturer to be associated with 007. Since there are both Bond films and games, also Bond is known for product placement, it seemed to be a good point. However, I couldn't think of a film that was notably bad for its use of blatant advertising let alone one that had a game made about it too. Anyway, my point was that games developers (or more likely publishers) shouldn't just throw in adverts to make more money. However, if they did it subtly without it being intrusive or conflicting with the atmosphere of the game then I wouldn't have much of a problem. Also (though slightly off topic) I remember that in Goldeneye for the N64 they changed the names of most of the guns to distance them from their real life counterparts. | |
That's a good point about Goldeneye. I imagine the outcry would be even more severe is we were talking about taking money from Beretta or Walther in exchange for prominent placement of their firearms, but isn't that, in effect, the exact same thing Harmonix is doing with Fender? How many levels of appropriateness do we have to deal with? My point is that the vague ethical expectations of gamers (which are often malleable and hard to track) make it a lot harder for game makers to do business. Whether that's just something they have to deal with or not is, I suppose, the question. | |
Whoever makes the decision, it's the criteria they use that counts. Like Ajar said, the criteria seem to be 'make it feel like you've actually *added* something to the game, rather than just found an empty space to fill with advertising'. Bond is all about British cool. Sophisticated cool. And Astin Martin is very British, sophisticated, and cool. An Audi...sophisticated, but more for someone who lives off of their dividends. A Mustang? Maybe one of the coolest cars ever, but not British or sophisticated at all. Very Duke Nukem, though--American and muscular. A Hyundai? Can't think of anyone that could get away with that. But a Borat game could get away with a Yugo! People were probably *already* pretending that generic Guitar Hero controller was some name-brand guitar--the corporate sponsorship doesn't call any attention to itself, because people were already imagining in their minds what the advertising added. Think about the reverse of corporate sponsorship: corporate licensing. EA actually *paid* hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL/NFLPA *not* to 'advertise' with anyone else. Why? Because back when sports games had generic franchises, we were imagining our favorite team anyway. So, I don't think it has anything to do with the economic aspects--gamers will actually *pay* more (in the sense of having the cost of licensing passed on to them) to be advertised to--just like the general public will pay more for a shirt with a corporate logo: think about it, we *pay* a premium to get a shirt that allows some corporation to use out bodies as billboards. It all comes down to whether the in-game references to real-world companies feel like they add something to the experience. I'd say in the end, it's more about companies having to be subtle rather than gamers being fickle: don't let the advertising look like advertising, and you'll be fine. Make it look like increased realism, and gamers will actually pay for it sometimes. | |
It's been a while since I took a marketing class, but IIRC my professor used to say there are two kinds of non-essential goods in the world: the things people already want and the things sellers want to make people want. The former sell themselves; the latter are what you need advertising for. That's why game developers pay to license desirable properties for inclusion in their games, but get paid to allow advertising for products marketers want to sell. People already want exotic cars and expensive guitars; and if they can't afford them in real life, then getting to play with them in games is usually the next best thing. Thus, including Ferraris and Fenders are an enticement to buy games like NfS and Rock Band: they let you pretend to have something and use something and BE something you'll never get to experience otherwise. But who lusts after Axe body spray or Kraft macaroni & cheese? Nobody. Which is why their inclusion in games is both jarring and unwelcome. Licensed goods enhance the gaming fantasy; advertising detracts from it. | |
I see it as entirely possible that there can be synergy in advertising and games. And I don't necessarily see the fickle aspect of the gamer's nature. We like it when it adds something to the experience. If MTV gives me a new song to play in Rock Band because they want to push the popularity of that song, at least I'm getting MORE game content, and CURRENT game content. I can also point out where a movie did something wrong. In Casino Royale, the first car we see Bond drive is a FORD. Yes, I know they have an Aston Martin later on, and Aston Martin is owned by Ford, and he got a quick upgrade to a classic Aston Martin, but they product placed a Ford, and it was gross. It was wrong for the franchise, and they did it for advertising sake (I think at least. Not to much effect.) The best ads I've ever encountered in games were ones that the development team MADE UP to contribute to the environment. YDKJ ads, DeathRow ads (there may have even been one authentic one thrown in there, I could never tell); these are wunderbar. If advertisers want billboards in games that gamers don't mind, they should either work more closely with the developers to make ads that fit the environment, or give developers creative control over the ads themselves. I know they won't do this, so I'll continue to have my willing suspension of disbelief jarred by bad advertisements. I can always dream... | |
It's encouraging that we're talking about this, because I see the issue of advertising in games as a defining issue for the industry as a whole, and for games as a medium. The main factor here is cost. The cost to make games is rising exponentially, and unless we're talking about browser-based games, or downloadables, a lot of independent studios are getting priced out of the market. Keep in mind that it's a lot harder to sell an indie game than an indie movie, because in a game, graphics and polish are the product, much more so than in a film. So with costs rising, folks are naturally looking to ads as a potential revenue source. I, personally, can't stand advertisements in my games, but I can live with them if I have to. My question is: are we in the minority? Are ads in games really that annoying or are we just getting up in arms about nothing.? Do the vast majority of folks (the Madden and Need for Speed players) even care? | |
It comes back to using ads where they fit. In the moving picture (TV+Theatre) and print medium, there are three distinct categories of advertisement that I can think of. I've laid out the framework with which I identify advertising, and then tried to resppond to the issue within that framework. (My apologies for the length, cheers to anyone who makes it all the way through.) Framework Next, we have "overt subsidy" advertisement. A full page ad in a magazine, or the commercial breaks during a show. They are often targeted to the audience most likely to be consuming the entertainment (Newegg ads in PC World, or DeBeers during an episode of Grey's Anatomy [disclaimer: I don't read PC World, and I've never watched Grey's Anatomy, so I'm just making these examples up]), but they are not typically PART of the content that I'm actively consuming. If advertisers are creative enough to make an engaging ad that is both advertising AND entertaining, kudos. They are being consumed secondarily though (except in a few exceptions, ie The Super Bowl or websites dedicated to television ads). In the end, we put up with them because we know that they are directly subsidizing the entertainment being consumed. We pay less to be entertained by giving the advertisers a chance to show their wares. This model is being "threatened" by the DVR, but I've never heard the same complaint from print advertisers saying "They're not even looking at my full page ad! Quick, disable the page-turning!" The third category is product placement (moving picture-wise). The goal in this sort of advertisement should be for it to be noticeable (I can see that the character is wearing Nike's) but not overbearing (there are no lingering shots of said Nike's, absorbing 3/4 of the screen as they might in overt subsidy). Seamless integration might be a good term for it. In the print world, maybe (at least in magazines) we can think of the items being reviewed as the product placement. The New Yorker discusses new books, the local Post has movie reviews, PC World touts the newest Intel chipsets. We're reading/watching for the content, but that is helped by the material offered by the advertisers. The movie/TV show is more realistic because the characters are consuming products that actually exist, and the content being written about is content that I can go out and consume (books, movies, hardware). In the context of games, "pure" advertisement seems to have worked alright, and fits the medium. Ahhh, the adver-game (Sneak King, anyone?) No explanation needed. "Overt subsidy" is an awkward fit for gaming, and I think this is what results in much of gamers' complaints. Product placement is something we're generally alright with, especially in sims (Madden and Need for Speed). Having the current year's lineup wearing the official uniforms and playing in realistic stadiums adds to the experience, and you can have banners everywhere because that's what it looks like in real life. As has already been pointed out, it's more fun to drive a car in a game, in a semi-realistic environment, if that car is real. That's not to say Rush 2049 wasn't fun because the cars weren't real, but that's because they were never intended to feel real. So, why is one okay, and the other not? Societal expectation. We expect "pure" advertisement to be free ("But," you say, "we paid for Sneak King." No, you paid for a disc and a box, the game was free. Learn to rationalize like a consumer, people.) "Overt subsidy" should reduce the price we pay. "Product placement" is a zero-sum game; sometimes the IP calls for a brand, and we pay for it, sometimes they have space for a product, and they make a little money off the placement. (I am not an advertising professional, this is just how I've always thought of it. Maybe they always make money off of it, but its the EXPECTATION I care about here.) What I'm not going to say is that this framework WORKS for games. What I am saying is that the advertisers need to deal with our expectations about the character of advertising. If they want to put a banner in a game that doesn't mesh with the environment in an enhancing, product placement style, then we expect overt subsidy. We expect to pay less. But all the gamer sees are ever-growing prices. Maybe they are growing more slowly because of the inclusion of advertisement, but we can't see that. We have to take it on the corporations word that they're acting in our best interest to keep costs down by including advertisements. So, to Russ's questions: No, I think the majority of people think in this way. Nobody minds a free advergame, nobody gets mad because Need for Speed has Porsche's and Brembo brakes. What everyone seems to mind are out-of-place ads that don't SEEM to make things cheaper. CBS is free to me because of the ads. If I can't see the subsidy, then how do I even know its there? That's when it becomes annoying, that's when we get up in arms: when the only thing about the "overt subsidy" advertisement is the "overt" part. P.S. People would be similarly up in arms if they started playing unskippable commercials in the middle of the movie at the theater or on HBO (premium content), or if I hit a full page ad on page 5 of my new hardcover book (for which I paid full price). People get angry when you do things outside of their expectations, regardless of medium. | |
Nice analysis Geoffrey. And yes, I made it all the way through. I think the only issue I'd take with what you presented is that the expectation is not clear. Millions of gamers buy the titles with the most obvious, obnoxious examples of (using your definitions) overt subsidies. And EA (let's not pretend) put the ads in their big-number games because they know millions of people are going to buy them. People aren't turning their nose up at Madden because there are billboards all over the stadiums. You could argue that people expect to see billboards in stadiums, but you can also argue that since we're accepting of these ads in the best-selling game of the year why shouldn't developers assume that we'll accept them in all games. Is expectation really the only difference, or is there a mindset, a predisposition toward acceptance from the "other 90%" who're buying these blockbuster games? When you say (and I agree, BTW) gamers have expectations, do you mean "gamers" or "everyone who plays games?" | |
I think what Valve is doing in CS is a good example of good and bad ads. Take one of their maps like Office. If I see a Xerox copier or a Coke machine I know it fits and I do not mind that someone paid for that spot. Take a map like Dust and having a big ad for Intel in some desert landscape that is 100 time better looking than the rest of the map then I don't like it. Make an Intel ad like an Arabic Mural with matching colors then I will like it. I would even find it clever. This will not happen with companies being very strict with their branding. Right now they seem to just take their magazine marketing spots and squeeze them into the game. Some Ads I see in games I equate to having a billboard for tampons in the mens room. | |
I agree that the expectations are not always clear, as with any other societal behavior. I think that what I laid out is a fair representation of how those expectations generally exist in regards to those other mediums. How the individual perceives the advertising is what results in the corresponding response. I give the example of playing commercials in the middle of movies, but the line blurs when the commercial is before the movie. People have been relatively okay with those. My best explanation for why is that the struggle of the theater (however manufactured by the industry it may or may not be [I have no opinion]) has been widely written about; it has been implanted into people's context about movie theaters. I know a small town theater owner personally and the ads before movies help keep him in the black. (Whoops, tangent, back to the point...) You have to try and interpret how people will perceive an advertisement in a new medium or context, and align it with examples from the consumer's previous experience. When you fail, we complain. I don't see how the ads on stadiums, and the brand name items, and the NFL license can qualify as overt subsidies (using my definitions). They are not out of place, they belong in the context in which they are presented (this pushes them, for me, into the product placement realm, or at least somewhere in between the two). And, EA typically plays it smart. I will be very surprised if Spore or Army of Two comes out with as much branding in it compared to Need for Speed or Madden, because it doesn't fit, and they know it. I argue that advertisers should work harder to recognize when something fits the context, and when it doesn't. EA recognizes a place they can shove an ad where it works, and they do it to their great benefit. I also see some chicken-and-egg logic at play here, if only slightly. Maybe EA gravitates towards games where they know there is lucrative opportunity for advertisement because of the nature of the content. When it comes to that other 90%, the unwashed masses, love for a franchise gives a developer a lot of leeway. EA can do a LOT of things wrong, and people will still want to play Madden for one reason or another. For a developer with a new game, they have to be more careful, because they don't have any loyalty yet. You have to gain our trust before you can begin abusing it. And, when I say gamers have expectations, what I really mean is that a majority of people raised in our society have these expectations. Of that majority, anyone who plays games will bring a similar set of expectations when it comes to the medium. @Alch: *lol* tampons in the mens room. That's exactly what I'm talking about. | |
Because we really don't accept ads, per se, in the best-selling game of the year. They don't register as ads at all--they register as increased detail and realism. It's for the same reason we accept seeing "Bike" or "Riddell" on a football helmet in an actual, real-life football game--that's a form of in-game advertising, but, it doesn't register with the audience as advertising. I think basically developers have fallen into two traps. Number one, assuming the consumer is a bit of a dolt--s/he's not, and letting the consumer think that's what they're considered really puts them off. Number two, they think because they don't understand someone, it *must* be because they're inherently incapable of being understood--"fickle". They never consider the possibility that they're more complex than the developer assumed they were. Like in the example you gave, the developer is thinking "people accept ads in one place, so why don't the accept them everwhere?" If they'd pause to consider that it might be something about those different places--instead of giving up and saying 'fickle'--they'd find the consumer is just a little more complex than the developer had initially thought. And the fact that something is complex in no way makes it less 'understandable'; it just means it'll take some more hard work and brains than something that it simple. To pick up on something Geoffrey42 said, "not always clear" doesn't necessarily mean "fickle"; it usually means "try again until you figure it out." I don't know much about the world of in-game advertising, but it seems you do, and it seems like the people involved are befuddled. Which is strange to me: it seems like if anyone would have consumer behavior down, it would be ad people. Maybe a big part of it is that they forget their own training--to me, it seems like all people have to do is say to themselves: 'hey, if this game world was the real world, would I as an ad person take a client's money to advertise on that billboard or in that stadium or...?' etc. If developers are befuddled, it seems like all they have to do is hire an outside ad firm to consult for them, and go through the offers and ask that question: 'if the game world were real, would you spend real money on behalf of a real client here?' Or ask 'would the NFL ever let you get away with putting an ad for this product here?' It seems to me most of the problem is just that developers are treating the game itself like ad space, instead of acting as if the game world were real in making in-game advertising decisions. | |
I thought I might mention that EA's games, like Madden and Need for Speed, will give you adverts based on the web pages you visit. Just adding even more intrusion with their adverts. | |
I'm not ignoring the invasive nature of this kind of spyware, that logs your web usage and/or uses demographic data to "target" advertisements to your location./hobbies, etc. but isn't this kind of thing _more_ likely to deliver ads that would be of use? If they could target you with precisions ads that _also_ fit into the game world, wouldn't that just be the absolute best possible thing? | |
I think I'm more against spyware completely. I feel even just monitoring you web habits is intrusive enough and I fail to see how it can't count as invasion of privacy. If they can get away with that whats to stop them there. I don't frequent porn or warez sites, yet I do have things I need to hide; debit card details, user names, passwords any any other sensitive data. Am I going to have to choose between playing pc games and using internet securely. I don't want to sound paranoid but you can't be sure what details they are sending off; is it just the web addresses or are they monitoring more. However, I don't want to shift this thread towards anti-spyware so I'll make a comment about adverts as well. I was thinking about some games that have put in adverts before now. I feel EA has been slowly sneaking in more adverts over the years. They used to have billboards in most of their games for their other games. I remember seeing billboards for 'need for speed' and 'Battlefield Vietnam' in 'Burnout 3' and that was over 2 and a half years ago. I think they will stick even more in if they don't get any significantly negative feedback. | |
^ I agree with lots of the arguments provided above. Certain brand based games, or advertisement filled games, make the dreams come true. Lotus Turbo Challenge. I'm driving a Lotus! Or like others have said, Need for Speed. We could even cite Gran Turismo, though this game features many cars which are rather unexciting. Wasn't there a more or less recent Porsche game as well? Certain brands simply hold a much more tentalizing value to them than others, and though I disagree on the idea that everyone's ready to dress like a brand-billboard, simply put, if the ad doesn't feel too forced, but actually helps to make the product more credible, and blends in comfortably, then the goal is met. It's also that gamers still want to breath a different air when playing video games, and escapism is strongly tied to dreams. But the fact is that they're just absolutely awfully down to earth components of a life we'd like to get far from when stepping into virtual worlds. Then there's the other element. The coolness. There are those brands which seem inherently cool, like Coca Cola, and so big that they seem "normal" in a game, like they seem convincing in Blade Runner. Maybe because the corporate theme is strong, and in a spoiled future, those voluminous ads feel like a natural skin. That way, a Fender guitar, an iconic model of electric guitar as quoted earlier, can feel like a natural addition.
If they actually help and do it correctly, this would be particularily useful for a project I'm related to, because the game occurs in an environment that is naturally full of ads, and the problem is actually to find enough ads, and the correct ones, for the game to remain credible. | |
I remember how amazed I was when I saw my first TV commercial in a theatre. Game advertising has happened and will continue to grow. You'll reach the flag in Mario and be treated to a 15-second toothpaste commercial soon. I've gone without cable TV for a few years now... and it's been wonderful. The people I work with are finally starting to not bother me with, "Did you see that commercial for the blah, blah, blah?" I got so sick of the commercials that I swore off cable TV. I still buy a few of the newer TV shows on DVD and it's amazing to watch a show for the first time without interruptions. I can't wait to pick up Heroes on DVD. ;-) In the end, we have a choice; either put up with it... or don't buy it. I don't think there's a middle ground unless gaming companies offer a more expensive advert-free version of their products. | |
Which might be a good thing. For most of the cases, it's just a question of changing a very, very small percentage of your texture set with standard ad-free surfaces, and I don't believe that the out-of-the-game advertising would be that different from one version to another that it would engender significant costs. | |
I would not object to an ad-free alternative, depending on how the pricing structure pans out. Then again, you still have to make a good game to put under all of those ads, and that's where a lot of folks get lost. | |
I felt compelled to sign up. I am involved a fair bit with in-game advertising but AFAIK it is not the case that spyware is used. The 3rd Party Ad agencies/networks that provide ads for EA games IGA or Massive (not totally clear who does what game and it keeps changing) don't do this. There is no spyware provided by them - they do not look at your Internet logs, etc. They use the IP address of the gamer to get "targeted" ads. In theory different brands have can advertise different languages or brand names (eg AXE in US and most of the world, LYNX in UK) in different countries. This has been misinterpreted gamers by some as spyware. Sorry I thought I would make that clear, other than that an interesting discussion. The initial post/news about the fickleness of gamers can at the same time be attached to other media. Films for example. 2 action films with Brad Pitt in it made by the same writers, producers, etc. Why did film x become a boxoffice success and film y become a flop. Maybe movie goers are fickle too and music lover, theatre goers, etc? It is not so easy to explain. No-one can predict the future. Really the amount companies wanting to advertising isn't too great at the moment and most only want to advertiser in AAA titles and even a full catalgue the publishers/dev house will only get 1 or 2 dollar back per game shipped. Not huge savings/profit (depending on how you look at it) but sure is enough to get interest. At the moment it is still nearly all like "product placement" rather than "overt subsidy" (they don't stop the gameplay for a 30 second commerical. And like any new medium/sport/etc where ads are not present and introduced they are disliked by some initially. Also different parts of the world have different ideas of what expectations are and gaming is more of a global business. I am from the UK and in sports, for example, football (soccer) teams have sponsers on the front of the shirts (and most of European soccer teams) but I get the impression that in the US there main sports American football, etc don't have brand sponsers on them. So what is common for one might be more alien to others. | |
All 30 second spots in the middle of shows may be "overt subsidies", but not all "overt subsidies" have to be 30 second spots. Banners on internet sites, to me, would qualify as overt subsidies, but they're not forcing me to stop reading the site, or absorbing content. Giant billboards in videogames where they don't add to immersion are more overt subsidy than product placement, because they don't fit. And as I said before, the reason people get upset (IMHO) is because they don't see the subsidy, just the overt. There's this giant ad in the middle of my medieval town, and its obvious that SOMEONE is getting paid for it, but for some reason I still paid "full price" for the game. Perception is key.
I could not agree more. One of the key points is that you have to deal with the expectations of every customer you hope to attract, even as they change in different parts of the world.
As are many other products which international companies sell. This does not give any company a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to dealing with regional differences in how their product or marketing is perceived. See the Chevy Nova as a classic case of "Well, it tested well in the US, I'm sure it'll play well in other markets."
There is a distinct difference between ads on jerseys (or ads superimposed in the middle of the playing field a la American Football) and an advertisement which is so out of context that it detracts from the current endeavor. We have ads all over many things, such as auto-racing, and no one minds, because it doesn't harm the end goal of the exercise, which is fast cars. Ads all over our subways and our bus stops do not prevent those things from functioning as intended. Ads in games which destroy immersion are disliked because they work against the medium in which they are being used. I am not saying that ads in games cannot work (or that no one would complain if they were done well; someone always complains). Advertisers and game designers just have to rethink the way they're doing it due to the challenges presented by the medium. | |
Thank you for the reply it is the sensible discussion I have seen about in-game ads I have seen. I either read the pro OTT more like press releases from the in-game ad networks or predictable 11 year kid Slashdot type commentary "I'll never buy another game that has ads in it ever I paid my money!!!!!!111111!!!!ONE. GO to h3LL"
True some ads can be foolish placements and true the line blurs which your decent definitions of different types of ads. I think it is stupid logic to place ads in worlds where they look out of place like your example. Most people that look at the growing industry of in-game ads do too. However I do not see this happening too much. Ads are in games where they are not out of place not many medieval RPGs have billboards for this century's products. I believe there is more scope too for ads to be in these games but as a more tongue-in-cheek variety and inject a little humour into it. Maybe "ye olde Budweiser" in the local inn. Complete with Budweiser logos behind the bar looking like they are chiseled out of oak, etc. Although this is nowhere near the ideal situation adding ads to more unsuitable games. And I don't believe we will see any/many of these in the future. Lessons have been learned and the Big 3 in game ad agencies/networks (Massive, IGA, Double Fusion) all now have more focus/pride themselves for their seamless integration into the games. In fact many WANT to intergrate with product placement much more they are already. More branded Sony/Nokia?etc PDAs when you pull up you map or read your next mission in game. Getting the ad agnecies (who want it as there idea and often don't know the limitation or have any idea what can be done with games) There are no consultants on advising people in the arena as far as I've been able to work out. People that run the V-lodge startup (http://www.v-lodge.com) are the closest I have seen but this will come. I also disagree the main reason is the overtness of ads (or what I see as overt) in some if not many cases - it is the fact that ads are there now and were not before. Take sports team sponsors is that if suddenly they in the US they started adding ads to sports shirt no doubt some quarters would complain. Are they complaining that the ads are too overt they stop there enjoyment of the game? or on a more basic level they don't want ads on their shirts? I am sure every area where ads have been added over the last hundred years there is some resistance but we accept it generally and move on. I am not saying it is right just what happens. The ads in medieval type game settings I am not even sure that has even happened, at least it hasn't as a generic billboard type that you fear. I think generally the ads that are in place; billboards in football sims, Racing games, etc, etc are not really overt. Where you see them in real life and considerably less then in real life if you really look at it at asports event, etc. Ads say in Counterstike if done right I can see no real harm. There is no place for (really) overt ads and most really are not them at the moment they are more like product placement like I said. In fact these ads are more likely to be targeted at your spefic demographic than the more general one of in the actual live sports so they are more relevant to you. If you know of any ads in actual games that are overly overt then please let me know. I don't want to see tampons in the men's room either. ;) I think there is a climate of hysteria about ads in games they mostly are just replacing generic billboards/brands (shops, etc) you have seen in locations your GTA and older sports sims, etc with real ads now. So not all that overt.
Very true. I made my point poorly. I meant that games are more global in that they are very much the same in multiple markets and the ads method of delivery will be the same. The billboard will be in the same place no matter if you by the game in Chile or Germany. True they CAN change the ad on the billboard based on your geolocation but the delivery is the same. Launching a product will often vastly different ad campaigns for each company and often the product will change too a Budweiser beer is a different beer in the US than the UK (classed as a premium beer over here and 5% alcohol volume where I think over there is is like 3%) and different product (alcohol %age and taste) on draught or in bottles, etc. Same with chocolate, soft drinks, soap powder, etc. Whereas music, films, games change very little in comparison.
Are you arguing about the placement of the ads (adverts in the middle of the football field) or the ads themselves (tampons advertised in the middle of the football field)? Both are a problem really. The placement of the ad and the context of the ad to the viewer. Ads are generally seen as ok to be placed in the mens room (so placement ok) but Tampons not be advertised there (the context is wrong). Generally though I think we are thinking the same points if the ad is placed well right and context and is the right type of ads. It is just that ads need to be done correctly (and I believe 99% of the time they are from what I have seen - true some could be done better but nothing "wrong") | |
All in all, JohnBaker, I'm mostly in agreement with you. Yes, the in-game advertising industry is experiencing growing pains, and as it matures, the ads will be better integrated, and fall more cleanly into my original 3 categories than many do now. Agreed. The billboard in my medieval town was a form of hyperbole, extreme exaggeration with the intent of making a point. I've never seen it happen, and I doubt most developers or advertisers are dumb enough to make it a reality. I was just trying to illustrate the far end of the spectrum in order to help define the spectrum of immersive to non-immersive ads. I have no issue with the ads in the middle of the field. In theory, I don't think there is any placement of an ad that cannot work (print, TV, videogame, or other); it's just a matter of finding the right ad and the right style to fit that placement. In reading your response, a new thought occurred to me in terms of the challenge facing videogame advertisements. When playing a videogame, more often than not, I'm engaged in some sort of personal fantasy or role-playing scenario. Puzzle games like Bejeweled aside, I am either Kratos, or Sora, or Amaterasu, or a NOD Commander, or the Master Chief. When advertisers place ads in games, they have to be melding them to the environment of those characters in the game, but the advertisers still want to sell to ME, the 18-24 yo male. There is a disconnect between who I am as the "The Consumer" and as "The Protagonist." This goes back to some points made earlier where people said that a gamer is living the fantasy of driving an Italian supercar, only to be reminded by the ad for AXE body spray that they really drive a Corolla. Who are the ads in the game for? (To clarify, I'm really thinking of in-game ads like virtual billboards, not product placements here) "The Protagonist" or "The Consumer"? So long as they keep aiming billboards at "The Consumer", I will be continually forced out of my role as "The Protagonist" which is why I'm playing the game to start with. Going back to Arbre's mentioning of Coca-Cola ads in Blade Runner: they made the ads in such a way that you could believe they were trying to sell Coke to Deckard, (The Protagonist), and not necessarily to me (The Consumer). Its easier, because in a movie, (or book, or TV show) The Protagonist and The Consumer are not the same person. Games make it ever so much harder because The Consumer is pretending to be The Protagonist, and they don't like being reminded that they aren't really the hero. This is sort of tangential to the question of ads at large in games, focusing more on virtual ads displayed in games, rather than just advertising in games in general. I have no answer for this problem, I'm just pointing it out, and seeing if anyone else has further thoughts. | |
This is an excellent and critical point, I think, and perhaps explains why advertising "feels" like it works better in sports or driving games, where we're not accepting a fantasy role, per se. But what's the solution to that, for advertisers? As a fantasy hero, you have no needs or wants beyond surviving the trials of the game, or perhaps grabbing a bigger gun. Things like body odor or hunger don't really come into play - that's why we play after all, to forget such mundane matters. How do you introduce advertising into a game of that kind in a way that doesn't ruin the escapist experience? Or is such a thing even possible? I guess this brings me back to one of my first questions to all of you guys, about how you, as consumers (or developers if there are any lurking about) think we can bridge the divide. Obviously the answer from the peanut gallery is going to be "don't do it at all," but I'm speaking practically, from a developer/advertiser point of view. Ads are a fact of life, and they will be coming to more games near you in the years ahead. The die is cast, all we can hope to do is deflect the worst of it. So how can we rectify the needs of the developers - to have ads in games - with our preferences as consumers that they not be distracting? After all, ads are *supposed* to be distracting, or at least attention-getting. That's the point. Isn't it? | |
I think by and large, it isn't possible. Not all games are created equal in terms of being fertile ground for advertising, and that's not a video game issue, that's just a game issue and doesn't change whether we're talking about real life or video games. Remember the brief popularity of the "GoldenPalace.com" temporary tattoos on boxers that from what I can tell, was a flash in the pan? Yet a race car driver can have twenty, thirty sponsor patches sewn on him or her. And it's not like advertising is a problem in boxing--the ringposts and the mat usually advertise "Budweiser." And really, no sport has the inherent advantage of race car driving--they've got a whole hood to put a huge ad on. People just have to recognize that video games aren't so different from real-life games. The only thing I can think for advertising in fantasy games is for fantasy games where a little humor isn't out of place. An orc warrior drinking Bloodweiser isn't out of place, but let's face it: it's a very effective ad for Budweiser. Like you said, "Ads are a fact of life, and they will be coming to more games near you in the years ahead." Where they wind up won't be determined by what gamers will or will not accept: the question will be more nuanced than that. It'll be about finding the equilibrium point where the revenue from increasing ad placement is minimally offset by the lost revenue from turned off consumers not buying the product. | |
This is a bit of a tangent, but, I wonder if real-world advertising has taken into account the free advertising to be had in video games. In other words, when, say, a company buys the rights to name a field, they were of course thinking of the return on investment from the company name being displayed on the stadium, from sports announces saying "we're here live from beautiful _____ park/coliseum/center/etc." I wonder if they're now factoring in the value of having the people who play _Madden_ hear that name every time they play, because of the way sports games try and replicate the 'ESPN broadcast experience' | |
I've been thinking a lot about the phenomenon that's (admittedly) not unique to gaming, but is nevertheless prevalent in our "society" - T-shirts. I went home the other day and saw a t-shirt for this game, a T-shirt for that game ... T-shirts of conferences, etc. It's true that sports teams take advantage of this kind of fandom - this desire to proclaim one's affection for a brand - but gamers are really over the top with this. We'll wear T-shirts advertising games we don't even like all that much, and each one has a logo, a full-color picture and a sometimes a little product description blurb. The difference between T-shirts and wall posters is slim, and T-shirts have the added advantage of moving around. Anyway, my thought in relation to in-game advertising was that perhaps, when we're so willing to run around bearing the standard of things we like, we, as gamers, (without making a value judgement) have a slightly skewed view of advertising. We're willing to wear Nintendo T-shirts until the literally fall off our bodies, but Tag bodyspray ads give us hives. Is this a choice issue? Are we saying that we'll devote our bodies to the cause, but it has to be our cause? Or does anyone disagree that sporting a T-shirt is brand advertising? | |
All goes back to context. When I'm wearing my Nintendo 'shroom shirt, Itsa ME, not Mario. When playing Mario, Itsa me, Mario, and I could care less about Tag body spray. (Disclaimer: I have never seen an ad in a Mario game, just try and glean my point) I think it's a very small minority that is religiously against all advertising, and that's how you seem to be portraying gamers when you say "we... have a slightly skewed view of advertising." People may say "Advertising is EVIL!!" then turn around and go "Oooooo, Galaga tie, schweet!" This isn't because they hate all advertising, and are being contradictory. It's because you aren't placing their hate of CERTAIN advertising in context, ie, poorly placed, un-immersive in-game ads. (For those people who do truly hate all forms of advertisement, there's really no point in debating about them or discussing with them, because you're not going to get anywhere anytime soon.) Also, everyone loves schwag, so even if we dislike a game, we have a free t-shirt. There are various reasons for wearing a shirt for a game you don't like or have never played, some of them being "Look, I'm cool, I get free stuff for being connected to the industry" and "I have no idea what my shirt says, it smelled the least bad when i pulled it off the floor" and of course "Retro is cool, and my grandpappy tells me they played games where you could actually SEE the individual sprites back in his day, ipso facto my shirt is cool." Or maybe, you really like the game, and the shirt was free, and that's just a bonus. To your questions: | |
I think it's just human: people have been identifying themselves by wearing stuff since, well, probably right after we discovered fire. Wearing something that puts our internal self on physical display for the world is primal. Like I said before, "we *pay* a premium to get a shirt that allows some corporation to use out bodies as billboards"; it's because we don't think we're buying a billboard, we think we're buying self-expression. If we really think about an ad, it's not just an ad. It's a work of art; in the case of a t-shirt it's clothing, or in the case of a billboard it's architecture; if it has words, it's possibly a joke or a small story. It doesn't have some 'essential nature' of being an ad; it's all those things at the same time, and the fact that something has the quality of being an ad doesn't trump every other quality--it doesn't 'poison the well'. The primary category we file something under is determined by the object taken as a whole. This leads to Geoffrey42's question #3--there are two ways to use the word 'advertising'. It can mean something where everyone looks and says 'hey--that's an ad' which means t-shirts aren't advertising. Or it can mean anything that "advertises" a product. In which case, a whole heap of stuff counts as advertising. A music video is an advertisement for a band's album, yet people gladly sit there and watch what were from the start designed to be commercials to get you to go buy an album. Heck, the money in your pocket started as advertising: a big reason ancient kings minted coins was so they could put their face on them, and people they didn't rule would hear about them as the coins made there way around the world in trade--lots of times they put the name of their military victories on the back. So whether a t-shirt is an "advertisement" or not really depends on the sense in which we're using that word. In the 'narrow' sense of something everyone identifies as an advertisement? Or in the 'broad' sense of something people identify as a music video, currency, or clothing, but nevertheless 'promotes' something. So t-shirts with logos? Sure they're ads in the broad sense, but not the narrow sense. Instead, when we see a t-shirt with a logo--whatever the promotional effect of that logo--we think 'quasi-uniform'. When we see them, they register as a way of identifying one's 'tribe' in the modern world. Gamers are probably "over the top" because gamers are a small tribe (or, at least, they still feel like they are), a tribe that feels marginalized. Which means it's a tribe that feels a pressing need to signal each other. Same reason metal dudes and punks wear band t-shirts way more than fans of pop music: when your tribe is small, you can't afford to miss each other; when your tribe is marginalized, you want to push it back into view. To tie it explicitly to your original point about 'why do we accept ads in some places and not in others', I'd say that the addition of a logo feels like they're adding value to the t-shirt: now it's not just a t-shirt, it's a form of self-expression. So much so that it doesn't feel like an ad--our attention is so focused on the value (i.e. self-expression) added by the logo that we forget that we're advertising anything. Same thing with the branding of a guitar hero controller: in that case, the value added is realism, and it's enough value that we forget it's advertising anything. | |
Bridge the divide. rules I think remain rather simple to point out (but harder to apply): - Analyze the world, the universe, and see if there's room ads. Don't put ads in Lord of the Ring. - Spend lots of money in the marketing dpt, in thinking your ads, in the way they're going to be placed, if there's going to be modifications to suit the environment and the spirit of the game (analogy: notice how studios like Warner Bros tweak their opening credits to suit the film's mood), so it runs smooth along the game. The issue is the same as in the films. Safe that this medium is more mature, and has a complete marketing machine that's well oiled now, running in parallel, when it comes to market study and advertisement placement. | |
I'd add the rule: 'anytime you start thinking gamers are more fickle than the general consumer and their decision making cannot be modeled with the same precision as the general consumer, repeat this two word mantra: pet rocks' | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
Experienced Points
MovieBob: Intermission
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Hexproof
Ask Dr Mark
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
The Darkness II Review
Reckoning Review
Exodus Review
Final Fantasy XIII-2 Review
Scarygirl Review
Amy Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
It's OK to Advertise - If We Like You
There's a word often used by PR agents, advertisers and even game developers to describe those who play - and buy - games. That word is "fickle." Merriam-Webster defines the word thusly: marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability : given to erratic changeableness.
OK. So why would people use that word to describe gamers? Perhaps it's because gamers will often support a franchise, buying copies, wearing T-shirts, badgering their peers to play it as well, and then grow cold on the franchise without notice. Sometimes gamers will buy one game, of a certain type (let's say Quake 2), but refuse to buy another, similar game (Daikatana), for reasons that seem incomprehensible, making the business of making and marketing games appear to be somewhat of an enigmatic exercise in futility. Like predicting the weather.
To be fair, this criticism has merit from a certain point of view. After all, if you don't play games (or play very few), what's the practical difference between Quake 2 and Daikatana? They're both shooters, both use the same game engine and are both produced by members of the team that made the blockbuster Doom. On paper, they're the same game. But you and I know they aren't. To you and me, the folks who play the games, the difference is clear: Quake 2 is a good game, Daikatana is not.
But even this stark comparison is misleading. Often the qualitative difference between one game and the next is not so clear cut, and the lightning captured by, Diablo, for example, might be such an out-of-the-blue, enigmatic quality that even now, years later, those who played it have a hard time explaining why it was such a fantastic experience. Imagine how hard it would be for a non-gaming marketing exec to figure out. After all, a lot of games similar to Diablo have followed in its wake (we're looking at you, Dungeon Siege), but few have made the same impact.
So although we know better, the easy answer is that gamers are "fickle," which, obviously in this case, is a misrepresentation of the truth. Diablo was just a really good game. Sometimes lighting strikes, and that's just the way it is. Liking Diablo and disliking Dungeon Siege doesn't necessarily mean we're fickle, it could just mean we have taste.
When it comes to the subject of advertising, however, we're off the scale for fickle, approaching schizophrenic.
***
schizo"phre"nia , Function: noun, 2 : contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes. - Merriam-Webster Online
Let's look at the furor over in-game advertising. Microsoft and EA both made recent announcements that they'd be pursuing in-game advertising campaigns, placing region-specific ads into online games you may be playing this very day. The response from gamers and the game press was less than enthusiastic.
"Although financial terms weren't disclosed, you can bet that keeping things 'fresh and relevant' was low on the list of reasons to do the deal," wrote Ars Technica's Nate Anderson in an August, 2006 editorial. "Game designers who sell your eyeballs for a buck don't want you to 'challenge everything': they want you to pay your money, close your mouth, and play along."
And Nate isn't alone. You'd think, therefore, the games sporting these advertisements would sell poorly, but you'd be wrong. Madden, Battlefield and Need for Speed, the games most often targeted as "ad-delivery vehicles," are consistently among the top-selling games on all platforms, selling like hotcakes. If hotcakes, you know, sold by the millions.
So gamers don't like ads, but they'll buy games with ads in them anyway. Got it. Perhaps it's a lesser of two evils thing. Perhaps we do hate them but put up with them for the sake of games we like. So it's a grudging acceptance. OK. So, trying to see the issue from the point of view of the poor schlep who has to market games to us , these gamer folk are hard to get a handle on, but perhaps we can find a middle ground. We'll just keep on keeping on and be glad gamers buy our games, even though we're forcing them to suck it down. Agree to disagree, and all that. Super.
So imagine the surprise of our hypothetical game marketing guy when he reads yesterday's headline news. Guitar Hero developer (and their new masters, publisher MTV Games and "marketing partner" EA) have landed a few big name sponsors including guitar maker Fender, which, considering Gibson and others (hello, MTV) were key marketing partners for the Guitar Hero series, isn't very surprising. What is surprising is the reaction to the deal from gamers and the game press.
From Rock Band Plays Nice with Fender:
From "Rock Band Gets Fender Instruments":
"Fender to Equip Rock Band":
Not "saddled" with advertising, but "featuring" exclusive products. It's a mad, mad world.
***
fick"le, Function: adjective, Etymology: Middle English fikel deceitful, inconstant, from Old English ficol deceitful; akin to Old English be fician to deceive, and probably to Old English fAh hostile: marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability : given to erratic changeableness. - Merriam-Webster Online
So it would seem advertising is OK if it's for a product that's "cool" or that people like. Like guitars. Never mind how practically appropriate it may be. Need for Speed; Carbon and Battlefield (EA properties) were panned for installing in-game ad systems advertising products from companies like Toyota, Kraft and Unliver, the makers of products like cars, food and toiletries - stuff people will actually buy - but how many gamers will actually be buying a Fender Stratocaster this year? Why is a Fender ad - and make no mistake, featuring the brand name, logo and product line is an advertisement, no matter what form it takes in-game (for crying out loud, the controller will be branded!) - any more appropriate than an ad for something people can actually use? The money is in the developer's bank no matter from whom it comes, and it all goes to the same place: making a better game. So why are gamers and the game press so uproariously down on some ads, but so effusively uplifted by others?
Perhaps they're just fickle. Or maybe there's another answer.
We're used to seeing ads for Toyota, Kraft and Unilever in newspapers, on TV and on billboards, but when we game we're supposedly trying to escape all of that. We don't want to be reminded that our six-year-old Hyundai has bad brakes, or that we need to pick up more Kraft Dinner at the store, or that we're out of soap. When we're holding that Stratocaster controller, we want to believe we're the rock star, and maybe we do have many choices when selecting an instrument and Fender is thankful for our business.
When we're playing Need for Speed, we want to believe that's our car we're driving, and that tomorrow, when we wake up late (having played too late at night) and drag our asses to work, it won't be in the aforementioned Hyundai, it'll be in that Lamborghini we've been drifting around hairpin turns.
When you've airdropped in to the combat zone and take aim at that weasly, little bastard lobbing mortars at you from the top of a burned-out building, seeing a bar of soap in high-res 3-D staring back at you through the high-powered scope is probably going to take you out of the game for a second. But when you hammer on the rock glory and pull off a 98 percent on hard with a genuine licensed Fender guitar, chances are you're not going to have a problem with that - even though it's the exact same thing.
And really, at the end of the day, who cares who's paying who under the table, what ads get served in your game and what logo is embossed on the controller? We say we want better games, bigger games, more innovative games, but then spend $60 a year on the latest, uninspiring Madden, bitch about ads but get googly over having genuine guitars in a game, courtesy of an advertising contract. We'll wear Nintendo (which is a brand) T-shirts to bed but throw sponsor-driven swag in the trash. Is there an advertising class struggle? Perhaps. Perhaps it's not about the ads, but all in how they're used, or what they represent. Replace Kraft dinner with Krystal and maybe the cries will be less hoarse.
Then again, we may just be fickle.
Permalink