PSA: Morgan Minute on advertising
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Nov 29th 2006 at 8:00AM }
We've discussed the potential benefits of in-game advertising before, but you know, we just don't seem to be seeing the benefits. Ads keep popping up in more and more games -- hell, we've even got spyware built into games to target us more efficiently with ads -- but where are the benefits? Games continue to sneak in more advertising, particularly from a few major publishing houses, but the cost of games continues to be the same. Don't even try to pull that buggery development cost reduction malarky. Plenty of publishers that don't use adware, spyware and basic in-game advertising have titles that cost exactly the same as the publishers who do use advertising models -- that makes no sense. Maybe if the message comes from G4's Morgan Webb, with great hair, make-up and a sloping v-neck shirt, it will emblazon the message upon the gamer masses, "Remember kids, if you watch ads, you should get free stuff!"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pat @ Nov 29th 2006 8:06AM
sock it to the man Morgs!
Jon @ Nov 29th 2006 8:11AM
In game ads are cool. It makes it more immersive. Why does anyone care if a billboard in a racing game says Cingular? Geez ppl find something else to whine about.
adeel @ Nov 29th 2006 8:16AM
In game ads are a good thing, but unlike TV, where the ads help to reduce the overall cost of a tv license, the ads in games do nothing but fill the publishers pockets. We should also see a reduction in the price of games or atleast some free downloadable content...
how 1 ad for 1 download scheme.. you opt in to watch an add (x=watch o=skip) and you get a credit that counts towards a download.
I can see that working pretty well. :)
Spilt_Milk @ Nov 29th 2006 8:19AM
Ads will never educe the cost of games because a good majority of gamers are morons like Jon that willingly bend over and then hand the developers a tube of scented astroglide.
Sploog @ Nov 29th 2006 8:22AM
since when did burnout have peugeots? looks like nfs to me. dumb woman
Gary @ Nov 29th 2006 8:36AM
I think that marketers peg the video game deomgraphic as a bunch of impressionable children who take pride in brand association and who are willing to gladly pay the price twice if for no other reason than harboring a general apathy for anything outside the realm of Transformers, let alone business ethics.
Erdos Kronecker @ Nov 30th 2006 12:30PM
If it comes from Morgan Webb, you can take it as if it came from a dumb hot blonde; except for the hot and blonde parts of course.
Anyway, I guess we couldn't have possibly known that if Morgan didn't state the obvious. Now I feel empowered to complain about something I bought, despite the fact that I bought it while knowing what I was getting for the price I was paying.
Worthless.
Iscariote @ Nov 29th 2006 9:14AM
There is a precedent for this, when we go to the movie theatres we get to pay $10 a ticket and sit through 15 minutes of ads, and before that we get to watch the clever "word game" slides on top of gigantic Coca Cola backgrounds.
I feel the same way about that as I do about ads in games. If I got free popcorn or half off my ticket for watching ads, I'd be happy.
Zak @ Nov 29th 2006 8:45AM
Seems kind of hypocritical that this was broadcast on G4, a cable channel I pay for, yet I still see commercials on the channel at least five hours out of the day.
I pay for G4, and I still see commercials, shouldn't I be getting free stuff?
phatmuther @ Nov 29th 2006 4:05PM
hahaha burnout 3? she blind?
Gimbal @ Nov 29th 2006 9:23AM
If I had the option of paying 1600 microsoft points for the Chapter 2 content of GRAW, or getting that same content free but the load screen for the multiplayer portion of the game is replaced with an ad for Victoria Secret....I'd take the free one.
But the single player, story driven parts of games just wouldn't be a good place for ads. I mean, imagine playing Oblivion and entering a dungeon, but after you open the door you get an ad for Cingular wireless before being plopped in the dungeon. That would just suck.
Publishers just need to use their heads and make sure they aren't ruining the game experience when they put ads in games.
Gregory Block @ Nov 29th 2006 8:56AM
Nice. Simple, and to the point.
Two points, even. Sorry, were here lips moving? Was there audio?
Urbanstorm @ Nov 29th 2006 8:59AM
Can you really blame publishers for taking advantages of your average gamer? I mean this is the same deomgraphic that is having a full blown internet war about which console has a bigger mangina.....
I hate that I have to spend 60 bucks for a game thats not even worth 40 and then see ads all over the place.Once gamer grow up and mature enough to understand that they are being taken for a ride we might be able to stop this.
crono141 @ Nov 29th 2006 9:37AM
Game prices should never exceed 40 dollars. 50 is pushing it, but acceptable. 60 is outrageous. Biggest reason I don't own a 360.
Fish @ Nov 29th 2006 9:15AM
In game advertising isn't THAT bad. What IS bad is that us gamers aren't getting an explanation as to why the ads are actually in the games themselves.
Maybe the ads increase the game's budget? Ok, fine. Show us the extra car, map, gun, shader operation, that the advertisement allowed. Just tell us WHY we're enduring your fucking Mountain Dew billboard, and I think we'll be cool.
Right now we're stuck in limbo, with ads everywhere in franchises that wouldn't need them for any of the above scenarios, and still being charged 60 dollars for a game that's 95% recycled and appeals to your average idiot (lookin at you Madden)
Todd @ Nov 29th 2006 2:20PM
I loathe Morgan Webb.
SupaDave @ Nov 29th 2006 9:24AM
Why would the publishers reduce the price of games?
This is purely speculation but how many more copies would a game sell if it were cheaper? Let's do the math with Zelda, I rounded the numbers for math sake.
Zelda
Cost: $50
Copies Sold: 450,000
Total $: 22.5 million
If Zelda used in game advertising and dropped the price
Cost: $30
Copies Sold: 450,000
Total $: 13.5 million
Zelda would need to sell 750,000 (it will) to make 22.5 million.
That's a lot of ground to make up with in game advertising. A developer can just add that advertising revenue to their bottom line. What company is going to turn down money?
On behalf of all gamers, I agree, and would like to see cheaper games. It just doesn't make business sense.
Lou @ Nov 29th 2006 9:27AM
I kind of agree on the immersive quality of the game. If putting billboards of real products on the road in a driving games makes the publisher a little more money then who cares. Also, the King as your trainer in Fight Night is the best part of that game, and I would rather be fighting to win a new Dodge caliber than some made up car invented for the game.
This system has never taken away from any game I have played. Rainbow Six Vegas is obviously getting some serious ad dollars from Dodge, and while it is kind of funny that every car on the strip happens to be a Dodge variant, at least this forced the game developer to make realistic car models.
All in game advertising does is assuage the already insane cost of making next gen games. Product placement in movies and TV have been around for years and I don't expect to go to any free movies anytime soon. If adding a Dodge Caliber to RB6:Vegas guarantees that RB7 will be even better because Ubisoft can risk more, then go on. Until I have to watch a preview or a commercial in between segments of the game, I don't have a problem. (being forced to watch a preview on a DVD I bought I still the most frustrating thing ever)
HOWEVER, I think that if Microsoft wants to pepper Xbox Live with ads for new games, for companies, and for their own products, then the price should be coming down. There is a new add everyday. I have a feeling they are making some money on that deal.
Hammer @ Nov 29th 2006 10:01AM
@ 13
I think you'll find that many companies PAY for advertising which would make up the shortfall in your calculations.
TopaZ @ Nov 29th 2006 11:08AM
Morgan needs my baby-sauce. That is all.
Koth @ Nov 29th 2006 10:41AM
@15
Bah! $60 is about £30. Games over here for the 360 cost around £50 when newly released. That would roughly equate to $100 a game.
Americans have it _easy_ when buying games.
Tom @ Nov 29th 2006 11:16AM
I think the in-game advertising is a little blatant in NBA 2k7 for 360. At first it was cool, but after seeing the "toyota fast break cam" and a replay, the screen goes black and displays "toyota>>moving forward" in white writing for a few seconds....that is just unnecessarily blatant! It actually interrupts gameplay. Although, you may be able to skip through this by pressing A
Sunny @ Nov 29th 2006 11:19AM
@18
Yeah. Put it all over her large, pointy, manly chin.
Whatever gets you there, I guess.
Ciaran @ Nov 29th 2006 11:25AM
she's cool. And her show.
Stuart @ Nov 29th 2006 12:42PM
Ever play swat 3? When they put out the first patch, suddenly in-game advertisements were popping up everywhere. OH yeah we're breaking intoa Psycho's house and- Oh hey Pepsi posters!
In-Game advertising is bullshit to the extreme. It doesn't make it immersive. Grandtheft Auto has pulled off immersive FAKE advertising, so why can't other companies do the same?
POOLSCLOSED @ Nov 29th 2006 1:04PM
THAT WAS 53 SECONDS NOT 1 MINUTE YOU LYING BITCH
Gozan @ Nov 29th 2006 1:14PM
The problem with players accepting ingame advertising as long as it is natural and doesn't break the immersion, is that developers get even more pressure to make the game's setting contemporary Earth, preferably urban North America. No more flights of fancy like Beyond Good and Evil or Okami; if am ad for Pepsi would look out of place in the game, it doesn't get greenlit.
ChrisL @ Nov 29th 2006 5:43PM
"23. THAT WAS 53 SECONDS NOT 1 MINUTE YOU LYING %$@!#"
They had to cut 7 seconds of it to make room for another commercial.
Joe Smith @ Nov 30th 2006 3:55PM
The benefit is more profit for the publishers -- which means they get to stay in business and make more games. Costs of dev keep going up, cost of marketing keeps going up, cost of distribuion keeps going up, but hte market size and hte price are not keeping pace. Any place they can make more money is a good thing. The market will control whether it gets out of hand or not. If games are obnoxious about it, players will stop buying. It is the way a capitalistic market works.
BIG Reub @ Nov 29th 2006 2:12PM
Company's are paid to allow people to peddle their wares. That's why in the beginning days of television there were trios singing about toothpaste and corn flakes. It's the only reason we have television. Broadcast companies wrap funny shows around adds so the we watch the adds. It's what make television and most other media profitable.
What game developers are doing now is generating an additional revenue stream. There were already profiting from games and now they found a way to make even more. Advertising it not there primary source of revenue. With a company making more money because of me purchasing a product I should expect a break. But for the same reason Nike shoes that cost 9 bucks to manufacture cost me $200 bucks as a consumer I don't think we'll see it.
B1gC72 @ Nov 29th 2006 2:58PM
In game ads are fine in some places. like if im playing a boxing game, i would love to see the sponors all over the ring because thats how it is in real life. or the press box on an NBA sideline with the ad ticker. thats real life. so basically im saying put um in sports games but i would never want to see Zelda reach into his back pocket and pull out his new Cingular cellphone. it just has to make sense when they put it in there.
and as much as games cost to make, the consumer is not going to see anything as far as a price reduction. dont get me wrong, i would love to see cheaper games ($40-$60 a game kills my pocket) but the developers are more-than-likely going to pocket the money from the ads.
Ian @ Nov 29th 2006 8:04PM
Its very simple, shit still costs money. Morgan is right, in game advertising does lead to cutting costs on games and movies and such. But why do you think companies need it now more than ever? Because games would cost to much without it. I mean would you rather have a 70 or 80 dollar game over a 60 dollar game? Prices for games were up in the 60+ dollar range till CDs came along for the original PS. And now companies are trying to keep them low as possible while still making a profit. Same with MS's XBL service. I'm guessing the cost for putting up servers worldwide and using that much bandwidth costs a pretty penny. 50 dollars a year is rather cheap for what your getting so don't complain about advertising, besides if your under 18 your not supposed to get advertisments, or M rated content. Back to my point, if you can make, as some commenter said earlier, 5 million more dollars or so by charging an extra 20 bucks then you'll do it. People will pay for it, and if they don't then you drop the price and make it a budget game. Its not hard to realize the cost is split between the publisher, console its on (MS, Sony, etc.), and retailer. If a retailer gets more money for a more expensive game (and they do) then they will be more inclined for shelf space over the games they make more money on, its that simple. All in all advertising is meant to cut costs without charging mroe for the game. If Ms Webb wants to pay 80 dollars for a game we all pay 60 for then I'd be glad to see her pay. I mean its not like theres no commercials on cable TV which we pay for (and which Morgan is on :O!).
Pince @ Nov 29th 2006 9:21PM
Why do publishers still charge 50 or 60$ for games?
Simple; because many gamers have a wonderfully convenient (for the publisher) attitude of "I want it and I want it now".
As long as the consumer buys at 60$ why would you not sell at 60. Eventually the price will be dropped to 20 or 30 at which point the developer will pick up those sales as well.
Until there is a change in the way we buy games as a consumer group, no prices will change, and I really don't see that happening.
Go ahead and tell most gamers that when Halo3 or MGS4 or Mario Galaxy come out they should not buy it; tell them all to wait. Next to none of them will listen to you because they consider it worth it to pay 50 or 60$ now rather than wait and pay 40,30,or 20 later. They really arent paying all that money just for the game; they are paying like 20 or 30$ to have the game right NOW.
Also, gamers may whine about some in-game advertizing but I doubt it affects most of their buying decisions. Someone isnt going to opt for a bargain bin title over a beloved franchise just because their favored game now has advertizing in it.
Gren @ Nov 29th 2006 10:45PM
Please try to get your facts straight next time you film your insta-rant and stick it on cable TV (which we have to PAY for). Cingular ads are featured in Need for Speed, not Burnout. Burnout is littered with ads for other EA Games which is slightly sleazier than ads for real world products and services.
Spinfusor @ Dec 21st 2006 7:24PM
You don't pay for TV channels, you pay for your CONNECTION to the TV channels. (Disregard for the moment that G4 is owned by Comcast)