Advergaming built into next-generation DNA?

by Blake Snow { Jul 17th 2006 at 11:30AM }

The BBC has an interesting read on the use of next-gen advergaming to subsidize increasing game development costs. From the article: "[The PS3 along with the 360] was also designed with advertisers in mind, but some in the ad serving business say there needs to be compatibility between all the various parts of the gaming industry. 'What we're seeing is publishers and hardware manufacturers becoming more and more collaborative, and that can only be good for the IGA space, as we call it, which is In Game Advertising space,' said Justin Townsend of IGA Worldwide."

In contrast, a Nintendo rep from the article said Wii will not have to rely on income from advertisements because ~~the console is a glorified GameCube~~ of lower development costs.

See also:

[Thanks, Donny]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Pitiful @ Jul 17th 2006 11:40AM

The Wii is nothing but a GLORIFIED Gamecube. I laugh at anyone who goes and buys that silly console.

Adam @ Jul 17th 2006 11:47AM

I wouldn't mind seeing more product placement in games as long as it doesn't take away from gameplay or delay the progress of the game. The cost of development is skyrocketing, and anything to keep games at $50 (are you listening, Microsoft?) is welcome.

copa @ Jul 17th 2006 11:48AM

Some gaming advertising is a little too creative:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6153979.html

John Q. @ Jul 17th 2006 11:52AM

Fantastic for Wii. Mandatory ads in games? Isn't that what the Gizmondo did? I'm already supporting your game by purchasing, developers. I deserve to play ad-free.

Tondog @ Jul 17th 2006 11:53AM

Oh boy, Joystiq is going to get heat for saying that the Wii is a glorified Gamecube. Too bad they are telling the truth.

baberg @ Jul 17th 2006 11:53AM

In-game advertising is fine when it is unobtrusive and "makes sense" with the flow of the game. If I'm conquering Visigoths while defending Rome and I see a sign for McDonalds or an iPod, that would seriously ruin my suspension of disbelief.

If, on the other hand, I'm in Half Life 2 and all televisions are Sony TVs, and some of them have PS3s underneath them, I could handle that.

The problem is, I don't trust gaming companies to make intelligent decisions with their ad placement.

Taylor G. @ Jul 17th 2006 11:54AM

@1

Guess you're going to be laughing at me then, because I'm getting one on launch day. And it looks like it'll be the only console I'll have for a while. Oh, and in game advertising sucks.

baberg @ Jul 17th 2006 12:03PM

@Taylor G.

Ignore Pitiful. He's an anti-Nintendo zealot, as seen on the recent Mario Hoops discussion here

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/16/cheesy-mario-hoops-ad-hits-youtube/#comments

Check out his lengthy comment #36 to see that he's just an angry, angry little man who probably cuts himself at night.

JimmyHACK @ Jul 17th 2006 12:03PM

advertising in games i could care less...

what i do not like is that when i pay $ 50 a year for our xbox live service they through the ads right in the dashboard..... i could see maybe if your silver member have the ads and therefore makes up for not paying, and give silver all the access to playing online for enduring the ads

all in all in-game ads are fine, but its just real tacky and ruins a nice looking dashboard

Probot @ Jul 17th 2006 12:05PM

"The problem is, I don't trust gaming companies to make intelligent decisions with their ad placement."

Yeah, because gaming companies are mostly interested in making games as unplayable as possible. They have no idea how to make a game enjoyable to play, and they just sit around all day thinking up ways of pissing of players.

Seriously though, in game ads are here to stay. I've yet to hear how I'd like to see them implemented though. Xbox 360 is the best platform for this since it's a centralized platform. The ads should be relative to what games you already own or what music you have on the HDD. Targeting specific audiences is the Holy Grail for advertisers and the Xbox 360 seems to be able to provide that opportunity.

And oh yeah, as striderhayasa said in another thread:

Trolls. trolls everywhere,
trolls, trolls, I don't care,
Alway talking, makes no sense,
Always funny at their expense

So Joystiq, even if your comment was meant in jest, you know you're just inviting flamewars. Please keep that to a minimum to encourage intelligent conversation.

patrick @ Jul 17th 2006 12:07PM

AD FREE THE WAY TO BE

Nick @ Jul 17th 2006 12:08PM

The Wii is a glorified GameCube...but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Most of the talk from developers on Xbox 360 and PS3 had them saying that they were getting roughly double the performance of the previous generation console. I fully expect that ratio to increase as they learn to use the full system horsepower, but for now, if you're only getting double the performance, an overclocked GameCube doesn't match up too badly. Its like making fun of graphics card or CPU manufacturers for bumping clock speeds instead of doing a complete redesign every generation.

I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised with 1st generation Wii graphics compared to the expectations out there. But as we get further into the console's life cycle, I expect the consoles performance to diverge.

Todd @ Jul 17th 2006 12:13PM

Looks like the Joystiq fanboy-wheel-of-fortune landed on bash Nintendo this week. That's ok, it's all apart of generating interest in posts.

Anyway, I might buy a game that has ads only if it doesn't take away from the game. Otherwise I'll return it and get my money back.

Pikmin 2 springs to mind with all of the licensed products in it (a first for Nintendo). It seemed to make the gameplay more interesting. It can be done right, however I know there are people out there that will do it the wrong way most of the time.

JimmyHACK @ Jul 17th 2006 12:19PM

as far as the gamecube comment...

maybe nintendo will actually support the new gamecube unlike the last one, that would be nice

Wilson @ Jul 17th 2006 12:19PM

If Sony is going to include advertisements into games, they better lower the price of the games for the PS3 and the system itself, otherwise, I'll just keep playing anything else.

Tondog @ Jul 17th 2006 12:26PM

"The Wii is a glorified GameCube...but is that necessarily a bad thing?"

It's not necessarily a bad thing at all. But it is
kind of a bad thing when you consider that the hardware hasn't had as much of a performance upgrade as the other 2 systems. It will be a bad thing for developers that are trying to port games over to the Wii because they will have to do a whole lot of re-tooling to make the game run on the Wii's inferior hardware. That and they have to find a way to make use of the Wiimote and the nunchuck attachment, which might add even more frustration to porting games over. All of these factors may lead to extremely poor quality ports of games for Wii owners.

Perhaps the biggest blow against Wii is that it does not support HD. That is probably the most idiotic move Nintendo has ever made in regards to a console. HD is the future, and Nintendo does not want to embrace it. I can't imagine how many complaints there will be from HDTV owners saying that Wii looks like crap because it only supports analog outputs.

I do like the Nintendo is taking risks with the Wii. I think that it may be a good idea and I wish the best of luck to Nintendo with the console, but I am very skeptical of the system. I just think that it has too many shortcomings that may hinder its success.

KingOfGods @ Jul 17th 2006 12:33PM

I'm all for the ads as long as it's not too intrusive...like having to click an ad to continue playing the game or continue playing on live.

One of the things we seem to forget is that the prices to develop games has not come down but gone up. These companies will have teams of people working to get a game ready and this cost money. If the ads in these games helps the publishers and the developers recoup the money used to make these games then I'm all for it.

Look at companies like Majesco and their game Psychonauts. I never read or heard one bad thing about this game but it sold shit. If in game ads would have helped Majesco recoup some of those dollars they might still be developing games like Demonik and others that got cancelled.
**Keep the ads to a minimum**

epobirs @ Jul 17th 2006 12:35PM

"Would you like fries with your disembowelment?"

Tondog @ Jul 17th 2006 12:41PM

Would you like to Super Size your death?

Panadero @ Jul 17th 2006 12:48PM

I still can't believe that some people are fine with ads as long as they "make sense" in the context of the game. Ads are NEVER good in games. Never. They will NOT lower the cost of the game to the consumer. They will NOT "enhance" the experience. They WILL become intrusive even if they aren't yet, for the most part. There is absolutely nothing to justify putting up with ads in games from a consumer point of view.

Zo @ Jul 17th 2006 12:53PM

I personally, dont mind seeing ads for Cingular, EA, or Burger King as I'm rushing through the streets of Need for Speed Most Wanted. In fact I just finished playing for a bit and now I'm hungry. I'm gonna go have some Burger King before work. Ad's mission: Accomplished.

Tush @ Jul 17th 2006 12:56PM

Yeah, I think ads are completely lame. We're inundated with ads all the freaking time, I used to be safe while playing video games... not anymore.

"HDTV owners saying that Wii looks like crap because it only supports analog outputs."

The Wii will support 480p, it shouldn't look like crap.

Most people don't have HDTV's... and aren't planning on getting one for a while. That's why the PS3 or the Xbox360 don't really appeal to me because they are meant to be played in HD.

therpham @ Jul 17th 2006 1:04PM

Best game for product placement ever: Katamari.

Just think about it - there were so many things in there that could have been licensed items instead of generic ones, and it would have made total sense. In some ways, it would have enhanced the experience. The only thing that would have been annoying about it is that all the itmes would have had trademark signs all over their names when they got rolled up.

"The Cosmos is not... GREASY enough. If you could roll up THIS MANY McDonald's® Restaurants in THIS AMOUNT OF TIME..." etc, etc.

Also, just to ruin the neutrality of this post, the game industry shouldn't be about making the same game for three consoles. Just sayin'.

kylekyle @ Jul 17th 2006 1:13PM

I'm hoping the Wii will escape in-game ads for at least another generation, but the comment from Nintendo in that article doesn't sound like an outright denial to me, ads weren't even mentioned. The games might not have to rely on ads, but does that mean they won't be put in there anyway? Not necessarily. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I can never really understand why some gamers support ads, as you can see in some comments. It's always justified by the fact that development costs are high. Why should you care about development costs? If you're worried more about the people making games than the games themselves, eventually you'll sacrifice so much that you won't even care about playing games anymore. I think some of the people supporting these ads are already at that point. Worry about the product, not the developer.

Fischsticks @ Jul 17th 2006 1:20PM

i'm not buying a wii for amazing super graphics i'm buying it for fun nintendo games and comparing this gen my gamecube defintely provided more fun than my xbox so a new and shiny and improved gamecube is a plus... i'm not going to be playing call of duty on the wii thats why i have a 360 for when i want that amazing graphics experience

Probot @ Jul 17th 2006 1:28PM

"Why should you care about development costs? If you're worried more about the people making games than the games themselves, eventually you'll sacrifice so much that you won't even care about playing games anymore. I think some of the people supporting these ads are already at that point. Worry about the product, not the developer."

This is like saying you shouldn't care if an musician is literally starving because you only care about them making music. If they die, they won't make music anymore.

At a certain point, it only becomes economically viable to release GTA, Madden, Halo, and Mario. Everything else would cost too much and not be able to compete with those franchises.

Game sales don't increase very much year on year, but development costs do. If development costs are too high, then there will be less games made. There needs to be an alternate mode for developers to get funding. Gamers want that to happen because the more funding the developers get, the more likely they'll release a good game.

Standard in game ads will be exactly like we've already seen, though hopefully more varied. They'll just be billboards in racing games or sponsers of sports matches. They will not be intrusive because developers are not stupid. They know how to make games and they won't make a game that isn't playable.

Matt @ Jul 17th 2006 1:29PM

I also don't think the argument that in-game advertising will offset dev costs can hold a lot of water. Over time, I'd be willing to bet that "iga" would end up being institutionalized as a way to increase profit margins, while dev costs will just continue to bloat- and the consumer still ends up carrying the bucket.

I have to say, I did think the Red Bull tie-in was kinda cute way back in '96 with Wipeout XL, and I don't have too much of a problem with companies lightly pushing their other games; a billboard for Tiger Woods golf along a highway in Burnout, for example.

But when I see the next billboard for Tag Body Spray, I cringe.

Rootbeer @ Jul 17th 2006 1:31PM

Yeah, because gaming companies are mostly interested in making games as unplayable as possible. They have no idea how to make a game enjoyable to play, and they just sit around all day thinking up ways of pissing of players.

Did you offer the same sarcastic defense for web page designers about five years ago, when the usability of the web almost collapsed under the weight of ten thousand animated flashing noisemaking popup, pop-under, interstitial, banner, and tile ads?

Game developers care about making games fun. But game publishers don't. They care about making money.

All of these factors may lead to extremely poor quality ports of games for Wii owners.

And/or extremely high-quality console exclusives for Wii owners. Honestly, I don't expect there will be a lot of titles released for all three consoles this generation.

Perhaps the biggest blow against Wii is that it does not support HD. That is probably the most idiotic move Nintendo has ever made in regards to a console.

Even more idiotic than sticking with cartridge media for the N64? Even more idiotic than the Virtual Boy? That's quite a strong statement for you to make.

HD is the future, and Nintendo does not want to embrace it. I can't imagine how many complaints there will be from HDTV owners saying that Wii looks like crap because it only supports analog outputs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Xbox 360 and the cheaper, non-HDMI version of the PS3 also only support analog video outputs?

Some people still hook up their consoles to their TVs via RF converters, for god's sake. I don't think that the number of consumers who will complain that the Wii looks bad at 480p will be significant to hurt Nintendo in the market.

I do agree with you that HD IS the future. But since for most consumers that seems to mean "five or more years away still", there's little justification for Nintendo to build it into this console. Maybe in the next one.

georgedakota @ Jul 17th 2006 1:36PM

Wii IS a gloried gamecube I have been saying this since i saw it at e3. Its not a bad thing if the games turn out much better than other consoles but from the people i talked to the top wii games at e3 werent any better than the top 360 titles, and with the graphics hit the games take i think mostly everyone will chose the 360 over it. Anyway i also think the wii is doomed. I wish people would just wake up and realize that the n64 and gamecube were HUGE disappointments. The last good nintendo system that wasnt a handheld came out in 89 or 90. Thats close to 2 decades ago. I think eventually we will see nintendo go the route of atari and sega and just make games not hardware. This was rumored a few years ago and with wii probably selling as good or worse than gamecube they should in all honesty. Nintendo sucks at hardware, stick to games and portable.

KingOfGods @ Jul 17th 2006 1:38PM

"Worry about the product, not the developer."

@kylekyle

How are we to worry about the the product when the product isn't released. If they are not recouping the money spent to create these games then we won't see the continuation of a franchise or better yet new fresh ideas.

The publishers and developers are not willing to take chances with "different" and "fresh" ideas if the money isn't coming in from somewhere.

Probot @ Jul 17th 2006 1:44PM

"Did you offer the same sarcastic defense for web page designers about five years ago, when the usability of the web almost collapsed under the weight of ten thousand animated flashing noisemaking popup, pop-under, interstitial, banner, and tile ads?"

If people didn't want those kinds of ads, they didn't visit those pages. My bank's website never had those kinds of ads. The better news sites didn't have those types of ads. Anything popular will be shaped by the user experience.

The same with games. If people don't want intrusive ads, they won't play those games. If Madden 2008 has popup ads and they see sales decline, you can bet your ass Madden 2009 won't have the same type of ads. Publishers only care about making money, and they get most of that money from consumers.

KineticOnline @ Jul 17th 2006 1:47PM

IGA isnt that bad, aslong as its done withing the confines of the game. Like the billboards placed realistically at the road side (not always in 100% condition) or product placement, instead or an energy water in a sports game they drink lucozade, as along as its done realistically then theres no reason why IGA isnt another step into making the games more realistic. Just make sure we dont see a master chief with nike trainers or GTA4 Hot coffee breaks "brought to you buy starbucks".

Panadero @ Jul 17th 2006 1:59PM

"I think eventually we will see nintendo go the route of atari and sega and just make games not hardware. This was rumored a few years ago and with wii probably selling as good or worse than gamecube they should in all honesty. Nintendo sucks at hardware, stick to games and portable."

You severly lack perspective if you think Nintendo will ever go software only. It's been "rumored" for close to ten years and Nintendo is much too prideful and frankly too financially successful to ever give up the hardware business. Nintendo does not "suck at hardware" if they decide to not participate in a meaningless, bullet-point driven horsepower pissing match with ever diminishing returns.

marsel @ Jul 17th 2006 2:15PM

i loved the last gamecube and ill prolly love the new one. gameads suck but theyve been around for a while, i mean how many more times can i go by best buy in need for speed games?

kylekyle @ Jul 17th 2006 2:20PM

Probot:

I look at it this way: if a developer has to taint their game with ads in order to offset development costs, then I won't buy it. And if I don't buy it, it's no different to me if the game was never released. There is a point when it's not even worth saving development costs, because the developers will have to give up so much to release the game that you won't even want to play it. I believe in-game ads have crossed that point, at least for me.

Nick @ Jul 17th 2006 2:47PM

The people that suggest Nintendo should just make software don't seem to understand that Nintendo doesn't take a loss (or if they do, only a very small loss) on the production of their hardware. They seem to be very good at managing hardware inventory, and despite poor Gamecube sales, they still made money off of it.

And every first party game Nintendo produces sells well. Really no exceptions... So any home console can bring them money through game releases.

Not to mention the fact that the DS prints money for nintendo...

Market share is kind of irrelevant if everything you produce makes you money. You can't grow the company, but you can stay afloat indefinitely.

Probot @ Jul 17th 2006 3:10PM

"And if I don't buy it, it's no different to me if the game was never released."

There is actually a tremendous difference between one lost sale and a cancelled game. In order to equate the two, you have to assume that most people agree with you, and that isn't the case. Even in the small group of gamers that come to this website, a good portion of them are fine with in-game ads. And mainstream gamers, which compromise the majority of the market, don't care about ads at all. They won't even notice them.

High development costs are the reason most developers have to outsource to other countries. They're the reason publishers are reluctant to try new ideas or ideas that appeal to niche audiences.

Don't think of it in terms of lower development costs, because that's technically not true. The dev costs will only get higher, but they will be subsidized by other funding, like ads.

So a publisher will have more money to spend on projects, and therefore, more projects are made. Game sales will still be the main source of income for publishers. And they will only get ad money if the game sells. More game sales mean more ad money, and the cycle fuels itself.

"There is a point when it's not even worth saving development costs, because the developers will have to give up so much to release the game that you won't even want to play it."

Video games do not exist in a bubble. There is advertising in every other section of our culture. It is part of our culture. Movies and TV have not suffered because of ads.

What you're talking about is advergaming. It's games that exist to sell a product. And they're actually quite popular. Hell, ILoveBees was an advergame/ARG and that was tremendously popular.

If you don't want to play games with ads, I won't force you to. But you have to understand, you're making a decision that can only result in you giving up this passtime altogether.

btboy500 @ Jul 17th 2006 3:37PM

"It's not necessarily a bad thing at all. But it is
kind of a bad thing when you consider that the hardware hasn't had as much of a performance upgrade as the other 2 systems. It will be a bad thing for developers that are trying to port games over to the Wii because they will have to do a whole lot of re-tooling to make the game run on the Wii's inferior hardware."(Tondog)

With the scalable engines out there, coupled with development costs at a fraction of those of the PS3 and 360, I'm not sure that such retooling would be too intensive, but I could be wrong.

"That and they have to find a way to make use of the Wiimote and the nunchuck attachment, which might add even more frustration to porting games over. All of these factors may lead to extremely poor quality ports of games for Wii owners."(Tondog)

If not all first party games will make use of the Wii remote(Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so far), why should we suspect that third party developers will necessarily have to include remote functionality?

"Perhaps the biggest blow against Wii is that it does not support HD. That is probably the most idiotic move Nintendo has ever made in regards to a console."(Tondog)

I personally disagree, I think that Nintendo has made much worse moves. Nintendo's philosophy regarding the Wii has been stated multiple times, and it focuses much more on innovative gameplay with new opened possibilities rather than merely graphical updates.

"HD is the future"(Tondog)

Perhaps, but is it the near-future? According to NPD group data from June of last year(http://www.npd.com/dynamic/releases/press_050620.html), while there is a great interest in HD, it's still very confusing to customers. Meanwhile, 96% of homes have atleast a standard TV and many will be content to use them until February 2009, which is when the U.S. government plans on phasing out analog broadcast signals.

"and Nintendo does not want to embrace it."(Tondog)

This is demonstrably false, as Shigeru Miyamoto stated in an interview with IGN(http://wii.ign.com/articles/707/707800p1.html) that the successor to the Wii years from now will likely support HD, which by then will be much more widespread. Nintendo doesn't have anything against HDTV, they just haven't deemed it worth the extra cost to their consumers.

" I can't imagine how many complaints there will be from HDTV owners saying that Wii looks like crap because it only supports analog outputs."(Tondog)

Having seen comparisons between HD resolutions in games versus standard ones, I don't really that substantial a difference that warrants me buying a relatively expensive HDTV set at the moment. Likewise, Nintendo wants to make a console that's as affordable as possible, which meant omitting things not necessary to their philosophy.

Magus @ Jul 17th 2006 3:40PM

Define non intrusive...
Youre playing a futuristic game out comes a cutscene with the main character. He pulls out an ipod or something and the game takes min 5 seconds making sure the object is identifiable. Thats technically unintrucive yet thats an extra time could have been placed into say developing the atmosphere or establishing the character...

Or how about a Coke or "insert company name" med kit...

Perhaps youd like coke loading screens as your next gen game takes 10 seconds to load levels...

Even something like using a dell pc "puzzle" element to unlock a door or something...

where do you draw the line

Jules @ Jul 17th 2006 4:25PM

I think looking at higher development costs there are 2 big culprits: microsoft and sony. Back in the day of the awesome retro consoles the development costs would probably have been significantly cheeper - obviously because the graphics were simple and everything relied on gameplay.

Nowadays we have people complaining about the quality of graphics on games. It is probably these realistic graphics that are responsible for the higher development costs (skill artists and animators must get paid a fortune!!). So while you sony and microsoft fans have a go at wii graphics I don't care - i only play for the fun of it....and while you're at it why don't you turn off your popup blocker while you're still on the net (those of you that are so into these stupid ads).

Webimpulse @ Jul 17th 2006 4:58PM

You know, one thing I always wondered about is exactly how the Wii will lower game development costs. I know the most obvious answer is because it has lower graphical standards than the Xbox 360 or PS3, but even with the lower graphical standards cutting costs at one corner, one would think that developing for such a complex control scheme as the Wiimote would be equally taxing on a developer's budget, considering how technically complex it is. That's one question I'd certainly like answered - just how much does it cost to develop for the complex control scheme of the Wii, and how does that compare financially to developing high-level graphics for the Xbox 360 and PS3?

Anyway, regarding in game advertising, in my humble opinion it would really depend on the kind of game the ads are in, as well as how the ads are used within the game. I know that's what other people have said before in this comments thread, but I can think of a few ways to sneak ads in that wouldn't be invasive but still serve their purpose:

-In a war-torn or post-apocalyptic setting, like, say, Gears of War, have a wrecked billboard, vending machine, lighted marquee, or other large format advertisement be displayed somewhere, as part of the ruins of the place. That way it could be part of the backstory, to express just what was lost during the war/disaster/big kablooie/giant enemy crab invasion, in much the way such ads have been used in other post-apocalyptic settings. (Whether or not such items are worth fighting for in a post-apocalyptic setting is another story, dependent on exactly what is being advertised...)

-Have the ads express some sort of message concurrent with the story, other than "buy our stuff." The best example I can think of, of how that can be accomplished, is in the movie Minority Report (yes, I know it has Tom Cruise in it, but the movie was still cool), in the scene where the main character is bombarded by ads that automatically tailor themselves to him via cameras that scan his eyes for his identity. Here, the ads in the movie are used to show just how invasive the surveillance in the paranoid society of the movie is (and how it can be possible in our future), in addition to being convenient product placements. I can see such a method of ad placement being done in some games to enhance their storylines and their messages, if done right. (I can't think of a good example of how it can be done in games right now off the top of my head.)

-Have the ads be part of something spectacular the player does, but indirectly. Example: have the player be confronted with a horde of bad guys, but conveniently place an ad billboard to blow up nearby, which the player can blow up at its base to have it come crashing down on said horde. (Of giant enemy crabs, possibly.)

-Have the ad be just plain ridiculous, to add an element of self-parody and thereby call attention to it without hitting the player upside the head with it. Best example - having the Burger King show up as a playable character in Fight Night Round 3.

Damn, I could be in marketing. Although if I found myself in a marketing position, I'd quickly shoot myself.

warren @ Jul 17th 2006 5:15PM

********The cost of development is skyrocketing, and anything to keep games at $50 (are you listening, Microsoft?) is welcome.*********

Umm MIcrosoft's games are $50 microsoft said that all 3rd parties could charge what they wanted. SO don't blame microsoft.

Morder @ Jul 17th 2006 5:23PM

"one would think that developing for such a complex control scheme as the Wiimote would be equally taxing on a developer's budget"

I would imagine that the hardware itself takes care of the translation to the game. I think of it more like a mouse than a wireless pointing device. You have scaled x-y-z (to the resolution of the game) coordinates.

It would seem that the API would take care of the controller itself. You just read the API.
On a standard controller, either an event fires on a button press or you just check the status of the button press. It can't be that different with the Wii Controller.

Killer Instinct @ Jul 17th 2006 7:09PM

As long as its not too distracting or something too obvious (like pepsi powerups). It needs to fit into the world and not be thrown into something like Sonic or Star Wars. And not one of those "!ncrease teh P3ni5" ads

Orangecoke @ Jul 17th 2006 7:21PM

I agree that ads are here to stay, and they will be just like the quality of the games themselves: some developers will implement them poorly, leading to games that suck harder than they normall would have. Some will do a great job of implementing them, they will be unintrusive and they will earn the developers and publishers extra revenue to offset costs.

Even though 360 prices are higher than last-gen games, overall game prices are fairly inelastic and yet development costs for good games are going up, up and up. Devs and publishers need to find ways to earn money on the game other than point-of-sale revenue.