What will make western gamers more accepting to "product placement"

[Shpongled]

...

FIGHT THE POWER.

Seriously though, advertising could be a VERY good thing for the games where it's not immersion shattering. That's a huge cash pipeline, which could go directly into development costs and result in a better, richer game.

It's also another way a developer could be put in contact with money and perhaps bypass publishers entirely, allowing them a lot more freedom in terms of the kind of game they want to create and how many resources they have to make that game.

It's not about fighting the power, just the idea of faceless corporations getting their grubby hands into my personal recreational time has never sat well with me.

Regarding the extra freedoms the money will provide to developers... yes and no. Ok, extra money is nice, but the fact that we've had countless brilliant games before suggests to me that advertising revenue isn't a necessity for making an amazing game.

Honestly, i'm not against completely unobtrusive advertising that isn't really noticed. But the whole point of advertising is to be as noticeable and memorable as possible. No ones going to pay advertising fee's for a small, unobtrusive advert which 90% of the people playing are going to miss it entirely, they're going to demand maximum possible exposure for their products, which is inevitably going to lead to obtrusiveness.

Basically, i want Rockstar to be the ones to decide what to put on their billboards, not Coke. Rockstar will put funny shit on the billboards, Coke will want utterly unfunny "SPEND ALL YOUR MONEY ON COKE" shit on the billboards. If Coke are paying Rockstar a shit ton of money, they aren't going to be happy with cock jokes. I'll bet my left testicle that in any given product placement contract there's going to be a whole heap of small print caveats defining just how and when the developers are allowed to use the product, which is just limiting the developers freedom, not adding to it. Remember all the "Sprunk" jokes and innuendos in the GTA games? How happy do you think Coke would be if Rockstar used their name to make countless penis jokes, do you really think they'd freely fork over vast amounts of money to Rockstar so they can go ahead shit all over the coke brand with immature penis jokes?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm fine with product placement if it makes sense in the context of the game and is subtle. Like for example if the game takes place in, say, New York and there was Coke-a-Cola ads on those giant billboards in time square. In fact in that case it actually make things more immersive than if they made up some fake products to put there. On the other hand if they had giant Pepsi billboards in, say, Skyrim that would be more than a little irritating, not to mention immersion breaking.

 

[Requia]

Why the hell should I put up with product placement in a 60$ game?

Though, if you want to use it to fund free to play that's cool.

 

[veloper]

I see alot of examples of games in contemporary settings here and I agree that some product placement could be achieved in a more tasteful manner in such games like GTA. Let the NPCs drink brand X or eat at Y without making a big deal about it. No problem sofar.

Now suppose that marketing people some day get product placement in games right, where the scenes in the game aren't compromised by the virtual billboards and products, whilst still remaining noticeable.
Potential. Good for the publisher because it's easy money, good for the players who get a cheaper game and good for the vendor who makes more sales, assuming the new product placement is also effective. A bit hypothetical, but it's not hard to envision a new trend in this scenario.
Successes there could lead to less diversity in games. Ideally the visual scale of the game should be at street level or closer and the setting of the game is to be urban (modern or post-modern) for the adds to fit. Sci-fi lends itself poorly. Future people could still drink coca-cola, but a toyota prius doesn't fit. If the future setting is also dystopian or post-apocalyptic it will be even harder to place products in a positive light without breaking the setting. Historical and fantasy settings are out of the question. So I would expect even more of the same.

 

[jebara]

How about full free stuff paid by the advertisers, instead of getting a Halo 4 game with the Mountain Dew/Doritos "buy this for double XP" advertising gimmick, how about a free map pack paid for by the Mountain Dew guys, every time it loads I get a sign "Brought to you by Mountain Dew" but nothing more, I feel thankful that I get this free stuff just so I can look at a logo between load times.
Do me a solid, and get me something, and maybe I'll buy you a drink.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'll bet my left testicle that in any given product placement contract there's going to be a whole heap of small print caveats defining just how and when the developers are allowed to use the product, which is just limiting the developers freedom, not adding to it. Remember all the "Sprunk" jokes and innuendos in the GTA games? How happy do you think Coke would be if Rockstar used their name to make countless penis jokes, do you really think they'd freely fork over vast amounts of money to Rockstar so they can go ahead shit all over the coke brand with immature penis jokes?

It's a salient point, but there's been a long history of companies willing to advertise for dodgy material, I suspect the same could be the case here. Rockstar would just need to pick the appropriate sponsors, rather than picking a single monolithic sponsor who would undoubtedly dictate to them how to craft their game.

If they start putting adverts in games all the money they'll bring in will just go straight in some greedy CEO's wallet. They've made profitable games without money from adverts, so why spend the advertising money on improving the game?

Which is why I suggested it as a means for small developers to bypass the publisher relationship. I'm well aware of what EA or Activision would do with advertising funds.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

I'll bet my left testicle that in any given product placement contract there's going to be a whole heap of small print caveats defining just how and when the developers are allowed to use the product, which is just limiting the developers freedom, not adding to it. Remember all the "Sprunk" jokes and innuendos in the GTA games? How happy do you think Coke would be if Rockstar used their name to make countless penis jokes, do you really think they'd freely fork over vast amounts of money to Rockstar so they can go ahead shit all over the coke brand with immature penis jokes?

Or at least not make sex jokes and just outright political humor. So a joke based on how Coke uses 100% more chemicals than their competitor Sprunk brand and causes indirect sterility.

And hole in the wall restaurants can have their places be placed into the GTA as either scenery or an actual restaurant with the player being able to order a signature dish. Also works great as a "collectible", visit every restaurant in game and try every single dish.

The idea of product placement is aimed towards GTA and crime sandbox, part of Yakuza's appeal is that it is like they are in a part of Japan.

 

[mightlife]

I see alot of examples of games in contemporary settings here and I agree that some product placement could be achieved in a more tasteful manner in such games like GTA. Let the NPCs drink brand X or eat at Y without making a big deal about it. No problem sofar.

Now suppose that marketing people some day get product placement in games right, where the scenes in the game aren't compromised by the virtual billboards and products, whilst still remaining noticeable.
Potential. Good for the publisher because it's easy money, good for the players who get a cheaper game and good for the vendor who makes more sales, assuming the new product placement is also effective. A bit hypothetical, but it's not hard to envision a new trend in this scenario.
...

Well said.
Getting it right is absolutely key. The message from this and other, similar threads on in-game advertising is that, like most things, it must be done well to succeed.

What is 'doing it right' in this context? The gaming community needs a way of telling devs and brand marketers what 'right' is, then as you hinted, this huge market can be turned into a win-win situation for everyone concerned.

Game fans need to be heard.


Let me take a sip of Pißwasser to wash that down

 

[Joccaren]

Depends on how its done. On billboards, and as stores on the sides of streets and such - I don't mind. Hell, the Nissan Leaf sations in Sim City I don't mind too much as they're small, barely do anything, and they kind of fit in. The toothpaste thing though... IDEK. It has nothing to do with toothpaste, its just like "Now a word from our sponsor!", and putting that in my face pisses me off. Do it subtly so it fits in with the game, I actually like it as it means more money to development [Hopefully. More likely just more to the publisher's pocket], and its a nice callback to RL. Shove it in my face... No.

 

[Woodsey]

The problem with the Western examples you cited it that they were so forced. A GTA game would be perfect for product placement; being able to go to a KFC and chow down would make sense within the world.

Only it wouldn't, because absolutely everything in those games is a parody of something else.

OT: Nothing. If I've already paid for it then they can fuck off.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The problem with the Western examples you cited it that they were so forced. A GTA game would be perfect for product placement; being able to go to a KFC and chow down would make sense within the world.

No it wouldn't, because the owners of brands would immediately dictate how and in what context their products could be shown. KFC being shown in a completely positive light in GTA of all things would completely skewer the atmosphere, there's a reason it's Cluckin' Bell and not KFC.

Apply that to any game, be it Simcity's Nissans with no balancing effects or hypothetical McDonalds that you can't enter or damage or in the streets of a shooter.

It doesn't work.

 

[snave]

It worked for Crazy Taxi. Apparently [http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/172/book_excerpt_game_design_.php?page=3] Wipeout too.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Apathy, eventually they will blend into the mental space for background noise just like internet banners.

I mean, seriously, when did those ever make you buy anything, really?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Better product placement. That simple. I don't particularly mind anything that doesn't clash with its surroundings and isn't exempted from the normal mechanics of the game and is balanced and isn't ridiculously frequent. At which stage it becomes tasteful. Things that come to mind are the Nissan whatevers of SimCity, which are apparently ridiculous in that they have no disadvantages and even poor people manage to own an electric car to make use of them, and I heard of Coke machines in a Bionic Commando (although I didn't actually play it) that couldn't be damaged. These are examples of stupidly forced product placement. When it ruins immersion or messes with game mechanics or is not treated like other things in the game it doesn't work and is a detriment to the game, and that's often the case. I suspect this is because the brands in question don't understand how tastefulness works and think if their item or whatever is pervasive and indestructable or has all positive benefits, the advertising somehow works better, instead of actually making the player frustrated at its existence.

Admittedly, I initially leaned towards "I paid for the game to play it not to be advertised to so they can fuck off", but in the end it doesn't really matter to me if a made-up or real brand is used if it fits in.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Product placement that adds verisimilitude is good, but gaming is in the situation that movies used to be in... the people who want their products placed don't just want KFC restaurants in the game... they want the Avatar in the Game to "Use and have a positive experience with a product" so that the player will want to buy that product because of how "great" it worked for the Player Avatar.

Essentially they want Master Chief to go "Jeez, I'm sure glad this MOUNTAIN DEW was available otherwise I'd be dangerously low on the EXTREME ENERGY I need to fight The Covenant" rather than say... just having a bunch of characters drinking a branded soda during a break. The Advertisers seem to want that breaking the fourth wall "comment".

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Well with previous disasters involving Dorito Gate and Nissan, they don't feel easy about product placement in games over here. Of course, companies like Coke should take a good ribbing as a response to their less well received MD incident

 

[ResonanceSD]

Why the hell should I put up with product placement in a 60$ game?

Though, if you want to use it to fund free to play that's cool.

^ This, if the game is still full price, then that's just fucked up. If they use it to offset costs and make the game cheaper at launch, then fantastic.

 

[AD-Stu]

LOL - I thought we already had. Guess it depends what kind of games you've been playing. As a long-time fan of driving games, for example, we've had product placement and advertising for decades. Sometimes it actually improves the games (see the golden era Need For Speed's real/licensed cars, as opposed to Burnout's made up ones for example - NFS was much better for the product inclusion IMO). Some of it was gratuitous (Cingular or whatever cell phone company having its logos on in-game phone calls). Some of it was neither here nor there (roadside billboard ads, something you'd expect to see driving down an ordinary road anyway).

When developers start compromising the game just to keep the advertisers happy, that's when it starts to become a bigger issue for me. See the latest Criterion Need for Speed games, for example, where you can no longer customise the cars. I'm expecting the car companies had a big hand in that, and IMO the games suffered a lot as a result.

My other favourite genre is RPGs and product placement doesn't tend to feature as often in them simply because so few of them are set in the present day.

Bottom line, where it's not intrusive and it makes some kind of sense in context I don't really mind. I'm a smart enough consumer to be able to tell when I'm being sold something and I can make my own mind up about its merits.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

LOL - I thought we already had. Guess it depends what kind of games you've been playing. As a long-time fan of driving games, for example, we've had product placement and advertising for decades. Sometimes it actually improves the games (see the golden era Need For Speed's real/licensed cars, as opposed to Burnout's made up ones for example - NFS was much better for the product inclusion IMO). Some of it was gratuitous (Cingular or whatever cell phone company having its logos on in-game phone calls). Some of it was neither here nor there (roadside billboard ads, something you'd expect to see driving down an ordinary road anyway).

When developers start compromising the game just to keep the advertisers happy, that's when it starts to become a bigger issue for me. See the latest Criterion Need for Speed games, for example, where you can no longer customise the cars. I'm expecting the car companies had a big hand in that, and IMO the games suffered a lot as a result.

My other favourite genre is RPGs and product placement doesn't tend to feature as often in them simply because so few of them are set in the present day.

Bottom line, where it's not intrusive and it makes some kind of sense in context I don't really mind. I'm a smart enough consumer to be able to tell when I'm being sold something and I can make my own mind up about its merits.

People want to see GTA take some real life product placement and get poked at.