Gamernode: News - EA advertising is in the game

EA advertising is in the game

Category: Industry, Posted: 03/19/2008 at 12:43PM CDT by Creighton DeSimone, Staff Writer

Remember when you heard that Xbox 360 and PS3 games were going to cost 60 dollars, up from 50 dollars in the previous generation. A 20% increase is a lot and I'm sure, just like me, you were unhappy.

The only saving grace was all the talk of in-game advertising. The idea being if publishers could sell enough advertising it would cost gamers less. Well where the hell is our cut?

I first really noticed in-game adverts while playing Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. There were these giant billboards that said "Viva Dodge!" or had the Dodge Ram logo on it. I'll bet Dodge paid quite a bit for having the exclusive advertising on the billboards in virtual Mexico. So with all that advertising, which I clearly noticed if I'm writing about it years later, why did the game still cost 60 dollars?

Now EA has just extended their deal with Massive Inc, the company that has done the adverts for the EA sports games in the past (you've probably heard of Madden) will now continue to provide their service through the 2010 seasons. Massive already does the advertising for the Tom Clancy games, including Ghost Recon, and will also be providing the advertising for many other EA games, like Need for Speed.

The NFS games are reported to bring EA close to 5 million dollars in advertising according to this report by the Wall Street Journal (subscribers only, but you can probably get the gist from the first couple of paragraphs).

Cory Van Arsdale, CEO of Massive said, "This multiyear partnership reflects both the maturity of the dynamic in-game advertising medium and the benefits that our network continues to deliver for both publishers and advertisers."

So publishers are making money hand over fist for in-game advertising. Massive is making money, having secured the advertising rights for industry heavyweights EA. And consumers? We still pay 60 dollars a game.

I'm all for in-game ads. I don't mind seeing "Viva Dodge!" while I sneak around a building in Mexico, but I want my cut. If you're going to shove advertising in my face I should at least be benefiting from it. I'm not saying the games should be free, but even dropping 10 dollars would be nice. It would make us feel less exploited knowing how much money publishers are making and I think most would agree.

[via Gameasutura]

Posted by Drukaree on 03/19/2008 at 01:18PM

I've always been kind of iffy on the subject of in-game advertising. I don't mind seeing ads in a virtual New York City or something; that makes the game more realistic. I just don't want to see Nike ads in my space sims or Chia Pet ads in my medieval RPGs, which would eventually happen once an advertising company has enough stake in a software company. It sounds horrible, but it's a huge possibility.

The fact that in-game advertising is a reality and it's not delivering the cost-cuts it promised to bring is a bad sign. This means they know they can get away with it, and they're going to keep pushing the limits until no game is safe.

Posted by Cobra951 on 03/19/2008 at 01:44PM

"This means they know they can get away with it . . ."

That's the whole story right there. They don't care if we get "our cut" of the ad revenue. They don't care if we gripe and moan. All they care about is that they can do it and no one will stop them.

Posted by zim on 03/19/2008 at 04:49PM

If these cunts get GTA4 youll be seeing huge EA and Battlefield ads all throughout the city Ill bet.

Posted by ninjalegend on 03/19/2008 at 09:46PM

^
That would tick me clean off. Like drukaree said only if they blend. But this article has something. Where is our cut. They have shortened overall gameplay time to reduce cost. Added ads. And even use middleware. If companies like bethesda can develop a proprietary engine, use no in game ads, and deliver hundreds of hours of gameplay for $60, then where is our savings from the ads and shortcuts?