Reuters opens Virtual News Bureau in "Second Life"

HeYo Tina!

On this subject, i feel it is just an inevetable transition, it was always destined to happen at a larger scale, you only have to look around and see how seemlessly advertising has become inter-woven with all our lives.

The PS3 and Xbox software production costs are high, as numerous programmers are required for games with higher quality graphics and sound, costs will be astronomical for some titles in the future, for both Xbox and PS3.

Microsoft and Sony may need advertising money eventually, seeing as though, they may well make financial losses with their consoles for the first couple of years, with only Nintendo due to make any profits on their units, as a player, i just hope that the advertising does not become intrusive to the gameplay in any way, because that simply would not be okay with many.

I think it would be alright if products being advertised had some relation to the game you are playing, say for example a game based on the Olympics had all their sponsors advertised, or perhaps the advertising in question added to the games authenticity, i think that would be pallatable, however, if these companies  start advertising say, fast food vendors and other such crap in an aggressive fashion, then well i think that would be very bad for the industry indeed.

On the possibility of cheaper games - get real girly, it is never gonna happen, at least not by way of advertising, the only way i can see cheaper games coming to the fore is if development costs are decreased substantially- very hard with PS3 and 360 software for the reasons i mention earlier.

* Nintendo's Wii in stark contrast has new developers software to decrease production costs for developers in the form of LiveMove, perhaps Sony and Microsoft have similar tools for their developers, if they do, i doubt very much that they would change software prices.

 

Hey! Monkey Ball looks CoolNCrazy- i have just seen the new trailers- the music sounds very cute, (especially the snow level i have seen), there are definitely some catchy tunes, i love the new characters The Doc and Baby, i think the game is going to be a a massive success worldwide. LS  

 The Japanese Ads for Monkey Ball are very funny, check them out for yourself. also there are, lotz of pics floating around of Wii acessories- controller gloves, dog tags and lepel pins and demo booths etc, and more on the very interesting programming tool for Wii Developers: LiveMove (developed by Alive)-- very good news for the 2nd wave of Wii games!.

With all the photos i have seen of all the good stuff waiting in storage depos, it is nice to know Nintendo are providing the little things we love from the get go.LS

Bye Tina .

 

Linkyshinks XX:)

 

Another great discussion, Tina.

In many ways, I don't mind virtual advertising in games, especially if it adds to the realism in the title or simply promotes brand awareness.  Virtual billboards or posters in racing games for example are really kind of neat, and I loved some of the car and product ads that appeared in New York in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.

Obviously, we all agree that when ads begin to interfere with game play, advertising has crossed the line.  I'd hate to see a game that forces you to buy a particular brand item to further the game play or buy particular food to keep your character alive.  Maybe you can only buy game peripherals at a certain store chain.  There are quite a few ways capitalist could take advantage of in-game advertising that are simply dreadful.

I'm very skeptical that in-game advertising reduces game development costs and saves us money.  We were promised just that in regards to movies a decade ago and the costs of going to see a movie have only increased with the number of ads were forced to endure before the movie.  At the moment, advertising in games does appear to be keeping some of the costs of games at bay...but for how long.

We're paying $10 more for 360 games and I really wonder why.  Most of what I've seen doesn't correspond with a $10 price hike.  There have been some excellent current-gen games that cost $10 less...why such a price difference?  Nintendo is determined to keep their titles at the $50 price point and certain people at Sony have expressed a similar interest.  While it's a little off topic, I don't think Microsoft is going to attract new gamers with $60 titles.

If they can keep game prices down then I say do it. I actually like the real life ads in games. It gives them a more realistic feel. Project Gotham, The Getaway, Fight Night, all benefited from real ads. Hell, the BURGER KING was actually in Fight Night 3. Fake ads detract from the realism. How many times have you been watching a TV show and seen a poster on the wall that says "We accept Vista and Mistercard"? It's like when a TV character gives out their phone number and it starts with 555.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990221/site/newsweek/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/15/tech/gamecore/main709467.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/04/tech/gamecore/main699689.shtml

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/games/0,71899-0.html?tw=rss.index

http://www.massiveincorporated.com/

Well, in my opinion, I think it's kind of lame (and ironic) that SL users can find out news of the "real world" from inside a "virtual world" and Reuters readers can find out SL "news" from the "real world." Confused? So am I.

Now, I mentioned "ironic" and if you think about it, the idea of broadcasting everyday real world news within a virtual world, is impeding on one of the main reasons for people to get into virtual worlds, in the first place...to escape" from the real world and be able to do things that are either impossible to do in the real world, or to do things that just (to put it lightly) wouldn't be "right" to do in the real world...

Alright, we all know that videogames have gotten more "realistic" with violence, language, "adult content", game stories/settings based in the real world, or based in "realistic-looking" fantasy worlds, and of course, graphics have gotten a HELL of a lot better. Those are some of the factors in videogames that have helped us immerse ourselves into the virtual worlds that (well, some videogames, of course) try to emulate our world. And before anyone starts to accuse me, yes, I know not ALL videogames try to emulate the real world...

So, besides having the best "realistic" graphics (characters, environments, physics, etc) and "realistic" game scenarios/stories and gameplay, for a game to be even appear more "real" to the user is the inclusion of advertising?

Sure, that idea might help with TV shows and movies, but when advertising is done in videogames, in my opinion, it should be done creatively and placed in spots that are noticeable (of course), but not annoying. Designers and the companies advertising need to be careful and smart, when placing ads in videogames. Make the advertisement effective, but not where it totally takes away the focus from gameplay. I DO NOT want to be smacked in the face with product-placement everywhere in a game.

Even though it would be foolish for anyone to turn down the chance make more dough, by advertising a company/their product, fake advertising/fake products in a game ("Cluckin' Bell" in GTA: SA), or TV show (The Simpson's "Duff" beer) has worked. It may seem kind of odd to not see a real company advertised, but why can't fictional companies be included? It (really) shouldn't hurt the game experience.

Sure, many games, television shows and movies try to be as "real" as possible for us to "connect" to them. But, do they have to include real advertising? No. Will the fake advertising appear out-of-place? That depends on how well the developer and the filmmakers create really-good advertisements that appear "real."

Advertising should not interfere with gameplay and indeed, too much advertising will cross-the-line. In GTA IV, for example (even though this will NEVER happen), I hope there won't be a Starbucks on every street-corner, or in Halo 3, Master Chief will sport the Nike "swoosh" logo on his helmet. That would kind of bother me.

Would you care if alcohol (including hard liquor) companies, cigarette companies, etc. were advertised in video games? Heck, what about Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc?

Now, as other people have mentioned here, games like Project Gotham, Tony Hawk, Crazy Taxi, Fight Night Round 3 (as well as other sports titles) and Splinter Cell, to name a few of many games with advertising, have advertised companies on in-game billboards, clothing, car-brand models, buildings (KFC in Crazy Taxi) etc. and that's fine, because, while it's product-placement, it does not interfer with gameplay. Does that help make games more appealing to some people? Absolutely. Recognizable brand-names and products can make a "real world" connection to a gamer. Is it necessary? You be the judge of that. Is this a sign of bad things to come? Well, let's just say that advertising in games should not get to the point to where they cause headaches to the gamer.

I don't really have a problem driving by a giant billboard with the words "Coca Cola" on it, in a game, but I wouldn't really care if it just said "Cola". Something made-up might seem kind of strange and out-of-place, but "realistic" advertising is one of the last things I want to think about, when trying to win a race.

Ted mentioned the BURGER KING in Fight Night Round 3 (I wanted to fight that BK dude!) and that is a great example of lame, in-your-face advertising in a game. I just said I wanted to box the BK mascot, not go to my nearest BK restaurant and order a "Whopper". Product-placement like that in games, is something I don't like to see, nor even think about. Fight Night Round 3 is very realistic, yet that BK mascot is what really takes a gamer out of the "realism".  If Ronald McDonald shows up in Super Mario Galaxy...yeah, that would not be great...

Advertising in games is not "bad." It just shouldn't get out-of-hand and annoying (like commercials). Speaking of commercials, I'm glad developers have not included commercials onto game discs (either upon boot, or during loading screens). Just like Arztek said, it's bad enough we have to sit through 10 mins of commercials, before movie trailers in theatres.

It's no secret the videogame-industry is a BIG, booming, Billion-dollar market and of course, companies should take advantage of it to advertise. Of course, it's a no-brainer. A great source of getting the word out to many gamers (young and old) on their products. That's expected, since they advertised on other media, such as TV, film, Internet and everywhere else.

The developers/publishers will also get a nice profit from advertising companies and that would be great if they used (some) of that extra cash to help the high-production costs of the games, but who really knows. Paying $59.99 for an Xbox 360 is high enough for me (although, paying an extra $10 for a "collector editions" is pushing it). Anything higher would be even more insane. At least the Wii games will be $49.99.

It's business. Money. Greed.

Sure, big-chain (non-game) companies will sponsor game developers and their games in TV ads, online ads, etc, but when the big-chain (non-game) companies are advertised in videogames, it should not be so apparent that it takes away from the videogame experience (for example, what if every computer that is featured in a videogame is made by Apple, just like on most TV shows and movies?).

With the huge popularity of online games and next-gen systems beginning to appear, I expect advertising in videogames will have a bigger role in the future. Hopefully, there will be a "limit" to the number of advertising that appears in a game, as well as the product(s) being advertised in a "acceptable" way.

Advertising in games will continue and hopefully, they won't get to the point, where we turn off the game, just like flipping the channel, during a commercial.

-----------------------------------------

Check this out...

Line Rider:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40255643/

 

 

 

 

Advertising in video games?  I don't seem to recall it in any of the games I've played, maybe because I really wasn't looking. I do remember in seeing in the Tony Hawk  and GTA series, the names of the companies that made the game, I didn't mind it.  I'm playing Dark Cloud right now and I have to buy what a need in a shop, I suppose having to buy a coke to refresh my health would seem odd.  I don't want to see commercials, or live action, I havn't seen it done well ever.  There may be good live action in a video game out there somewhere I just havn't seen it, sorry I went off topic.  If the ads in games do what you said, help keep the cost of game down for me, then sure, go for it.  Ads in movies havn't kept the cost down so I'm not sure it would in games, I replaced my movie going with game playing, if video games go the Hollywood route, I wonder where I'll go then... books?  Full circle, huh?

Would increased advertising revenue cause lower game prices?  Probably not.  You'd be asking the company to give up potential revenue.  Remember that's not the decision of anyone at the game-making company...it's the decision of all their stockholders.  Bill down the road, who doesn't know anything about the Wii60, owns part of the game company and just wants to make money.

BUT!  Without the need for any kind of widespread altruism, increased advertising revenue would probably allow them to make MORE games.  Just like movies or music, every game is an investment - a gamble.  Some will flop, some will take off.  If the ones that "take off" make more money, they can afford to try their luck on a wider array next time - they can make more bets.  That works out well for us - I love variety.