In-game advertising works well, according to study
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Oct 4th 2005 at 8:45AM }
According to a study conducted by Nielsen Interactive Entertainment on commission from in-game
advertisers Double Fusion, 50 percent of study participants said that in-game ads made the gaming experience "more
realistic" (21 percent disagreed). Just over half again (54 percent) said that the ads are attention getting.
Well, sure. But check out the screenshot at right. Starbucks being advertised in a Godfather-like setting is an anachronism that'd cause anybody to do a double-take. How does that sort of ad serve to create a more immersive world?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
chudgoo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Even IF this is true, do what is right and please do not encourage them to continue!
Sports games can get away with it easily as the majority of pro sports have long been infested with commercialism. It really doesn't feel out of place there...
However, for the other 100+ genres out there, these are obnoxious and destroy the illusion of the fantasy world the game creators worked so hard to make believable.
Leave the ads to entertainment that's less "permanent", like network sitcoms.
CheapyD @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I'm pretty sure Massive Inc. and other the other in-game ad companies are aware that ads that do not make sense inside a particular game world will not help anybody.
After all, they don't want to make the games (advertising delivery vehicle) less attractive to gamers (ad reception bucket).
Where is that graphic from? Perhaps that's a London taxi pictured and not 1950s NYC.
Simes @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Definitely a London taxi - that's a UK zebra crossing on the road in front of it, too.
vc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
That photo is from Double Fusion's homepage.
Sloopydrew @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Ads in games are nasty. First they rape our minds by adding their crap to movies, and now they're stinking up games, left and right. I wonder how Nielson "research" phrased the question that led to over 50% saying that ads make games "more realistic?" I'm guessing it was something like, "Whether or not you like advertising in games, do you think name-brand items make the games seem more true-to-life than made up products?" Pretty soon Master Chief's boots will have the Nike Swoosh (or whatever that thing is) and Resident Evil will change its name to Lockheed Martin.
A New Challenger @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Sonic already had those SOAP grinding shoes in Sonic Adventure 2. That's probably the most bothersome one to me. Or the Honda Element ads in SSX3, including the part on one of the first courses where you railgrind through the open doors of an Element. And the dnL/Stuff Magazine board skins. I heard about the Duracell battery in Pikmin 2 as well. THAT really bothers me.
For whatever reason, the DOLE banana branding in the Gamecube Monkey Ball games does not bother me. And I have no idea why not. Maybe it's the sheer absurdity of a fruit company using a video game as a marketing tool. I don't know.
cbisquit @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
#6 (A New Challenger): the use of actual product names in pikmin was kinda cute, and served to establish that scale of the game was tiny and the mystery planet was most likely earth. I enjoyed stumbling over the occasional piece of real world trash as it was a kind of humorous nod to the way the field behind your house would look if you were 1/4 inch tall.
B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I'm fine with Ads in games as long as I also get destructable enviroments. Starbucks, meet rocket launcher. Vending machine, perhaps you'd like a taste of Mr. Crowbar.
ooda @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
If it's for realism, then I have no problem with in-game ads. Though, as of yet, there has not been a game where it has been justified.
The only time when I may find the acceptable, or even preferable, was if Rockstar decided to make a carbon copy of some city like New York (I mean close copy, not Liberty City miniaturized New York city). Driving through Times Square would be pretty damn cool if it was like real life.
What I'm trying to say is, it should only be done if what you're doing is exactly copying something. Games like Gran Turismo do it well. Games by EA don't.
MosquitoControl @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
The problem with "real" is it's often turned into "overkill."
Look at that screenshot. No less than seven mentions of "Starbucks" in one tiny screenshot. C'mon. The focus of the game switches from what you're doing to, well, Starbucks. Good for advertiser, bad for everyone else.
Someone mentioned Monkeyball. Monkeyball didn't bother me, either. Why? Because you hardly noticed the Dole logos. You had to look for them to see them, they weren't everywhere you turned.
There's also the question of what the gamer gets from this. We know the answer isn't cheaper prices. So how about a better quality product? Somehow I doubt that. The money is probably used to lower development costs, not fund lengthier development. So the gamer is installing a program that keeps connecting to the internet to download new media and getting absolutely nothing out of it.
Huzzah!
tpp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
If this becomes bothersome to gamers I fully expect homegrown solutions to emerge that completely disable the ads or otherwise make them useless for advertisers (e.g. disabling the impressions counting HTTP requests going to Massive Inc.)
Nathan Strutz @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I, for one, am totally for it, as long as it gives us free or cheaper gaming in the future. I would not mind seeing an occasional pepsi machine or hershey bar, or even a wal-mart here or there, if it means i don't have to pay the monthly mmorpg fees. sounds like a good deal to me.
arraksman @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
The worst that I have seen so far Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, Soaked. Hershey sunk a lot of money to have boothes and rides shaped like there candy. I guess its not so bad if you plan on recreating Hersey Park. At lease there are duplicate non-Hersey rides.