In-Game Advertising: Trend or Fad?
Dave Perry (formerly of Shiny Entertainment) has announced a Massively-Multiplayer Online games where power-leveling is accomplished by exposing yourself to marketing messages. Battlefield: 2142 (which I will NOT be buying) will be filled with in-game advertising, so you can find out about Nike shoes while you are battling battle-war-mech-bots or whatever. Play a free flash game on Popcap.com, and you will have to see a short advertisement before being allowed to play the game.

We live in an age and society where advertising is practically everywhere. It has invaded almost every medium. Cable TV once billed itself as "ad-free television," but that didn't last too long. Are games merely the next notch on the side of the advertising juggernaut? Or is this simply an inevitable experiment doomed to failure because game-playing is a fundamentally different experience from that of more passive media, and gamers won't stand for it?

I'm not a foe of advertising. As a consumer, I do like knowing about what products are available. I have subscribed to gaming magazines which focus most of their non-advertising space to let me know what's coming, and what's worth buying. And I wasn't bugged by the fact that 50% of the magazine I paid for was filled with ads. My wife looks forward to seeing the previews when going to a movie (sometimes the previews are better than the movie we paid to see). And I enjoy getting "free" stuff (like playing free games at Popcap, or listening to the radio) realizing that it's advertising-sponsored. I'm okay with all that.

And as a maker and seller of games, I'm all for advertising. I have some ads placed on this blog to help pay for bandwidth (I can't say how much I make on them, but let's just say a 12-year-old could do better by babysitting...) The free game downloads are, of course, a form of advertising the full versions. And I do plug the products available at RampantGames.com from time to time. Although I also plug other games & tools, too... just because I'm that way. If I find something I like, I like to tell people about it in case they'll like it, too.

But being subjected to advertising while you are playing a game? Is it good or bad? Will it last? Will gamers stand for it? Will they have a choice?

The Good
I think most gamers are not opposed to in-game advertising if they can readily perceive the value they are getting from it. Especially if they are getting to play the game for free.

In our Jet Moto and Snowmobile Racing games, we actively sought out real-world sponsors not just for cross-promotional value, but also to give the games some credibility and ground them in the real-world. It was a weird situation - because advertising is so pervasive in our culture, the racing game felt like it was MISSING if there wasn't advertising for sponsors placed all over the tracks. I don't think money ever changed hands, though I did get a free Butterfinger candybar out of the deal. And Butterfinger candybars ran a little promotion on the side of the wrapper promoting our videogame. That was cool.

In the case of downloadable games, I don't get too annoyed seeing a splash-screen advertising the full version or other games available from the same site. I expect it. Just like I don't dislike previews of coming movies when I go to a movie theater. In fact, we often look forward to it. It's not been unheard of for some (weird) people to go to a movie just to see the new preview of a highly anticipated film (sometimes leaving after the previews, as happened with the previews of the second Star Wars trilogy).

The Bad
I think consumer tolerance will only go so far, if given a choice in the matter. And one thing technology has provided us is PLENTY of choice.

For one thing, gamers MAY balk at being subjected to ads that detract from the immersive experience that makes many games so popular. If I'm walking down a dungeon corridor and encounter a troll carrying a bag of Doritos and wearing Adidas sneakers, I'm not going to be very pleased with the game (unless the game is SUPPOSED to be funny). But if I'm playing a sports game or a modern-day urban game (Like GTA), I won't bat an eyelash. Maybe on some level I'm going to be a little annoyed at being treated like a walking wallet, but it may not influence my purchase decision for the game.

It's all about whether the advertising comes with a perceived gain to the consumer, or a perceived loss. Maybe consumers were willing to put up with commercials on cable TV - because they were already used to it on network television. This probably won't be the case with games. Perry thinks he can get away with it in an MMO because the advertising DOES come with a consumer benefit, in the form of increased power in the game. And, if I understand it correctly, a game that can be played for free. There's a benefit. People may put up with it.

Battlefield 2042? It may sell because of the name. The ads may ONLY appear in loading screens. But I expect a bit of consumer lashback. Especially if they think it makes their game load EVEN SLOWER.

Now here's another thing. Company A specializes in medieval fantasy games, where in-game advertising just won't work. But Company B specializes in modern-day action titles where such things WILL work. Both games sell a million copies, but Company B ends up being 50% more profitable because of the in-game ads.

So will that influence developers to quit making medieval fantasy or sci-fi titles, and focus on games where they can get away with in-game advertising? I'm going to be pissed if my beloved fantasy RPGs become even more rare because publishers are trying to chase more money with advertising.

The Ugly
So - fad or trend? Are consumers going to rebel, quit playing games entirely? Not likely. So are they just going to roll over and pay for the privelege of being treated like a wallet with legs? Also unlikely.

I think that some form of advertising with games is going to always be with us. There'll be ad-supported free games with us for as long as cheapskates like me are playing games. There'll be advertising dumped in the box for as long as people are buying games in boxes (which I actually don't think will last many more years), and there'll be some advertising included with many game installs. There may be low-key advertising - even the in-game ads like we're starting to see now - for some time.

But I don't think ubiquitous in-game advertising is going to "catch on." Not as long as there are alternatives. Why not?

Television executives - cable and network - have been complaining that fewer people have been tuning in to watch TV the last couple of years. TV viewing has been dropping across the board in the U.S. Video games get some of the blame - and that's probably fair (that's one thing I'm proud to have games take the rap for!) There are probably many causes. But here's one more:

People are choosing to watch television without advertising. Choices are becoming available. The whole broadcast flag flap is about people choosing to watch broadcast TV while skipping the commercials using new technology. Me? I've taken to watching television shows a season or two LATE, getting them on DVD from Netflix. Sometimes purchasing the series outright. The delay and the price is worth it to me. I didn't mind seeing the first season of 24 only this last year... because I saved myself about 8 hours of advertising I'd have otherwise had to sit through by watching it on DVD.

Unless the advertising provides a clear advantage to the consumer, it won't matter how much the developer or publisher talks about how they could afford so much more quality only because of the advertising subsidy. The consumer won't feel that advantage - all they'll know is that they are being subjected to advertising in a game, and they'll know that THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE. If that detracts from the gaming experience at all, they'll vote with their wallets and walk.
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 12:30 PM (Permalink)