Activision’s apparent new stance on in-game advertisements is that they aren’t necessary.
Just when evidence had come out indicating that in-game advertisements have a positive effect on consumer spending, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has indicated a reluctance to use them at all. In comments made at a media conference today, Kotick stated that in-game ads are disrespectful to his customers.
Despite a perception by some that Kotick is all about profit, he alleges that Activision is not focused on making that profit through in-game ads. “There was a time where we thought advertising and sponsorship was a big opportunity, but what we realized is our customers are paying $60 for a game or paying a monthly subscription fee and they don’t really want to be barraged with sponsorship or advertising,” Kotick said. “So being very respectful of our audiences, unless it’s something that’s really authentic and will enhance the game experience, we’re generally not going to include something in the game.”
“There may be future opportunities where you might offer a consumer an advertiser-supported experience so they wouldn’t have to pay for it,” he continued. “But as long as our audience is paying $60 for a game or a subscription fee I think we’re going to limit the amount of advertising or sponsorship incorporated into a game.”
This could go a long way for Kotick’s image in the eyes of gamers. In-game advertising makes sense in certain titles, like Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero that use real-world products. On the other hand, it really can be strange when you’re questing through a game like Diablo III and you see a Pepsi can monster that shakes himself up and fizzes on you as an attack. Thankfully, Activison has no plans to implement such a thing.
Source: IGN
