As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Would you buy in a 2 dollar game, that had a fair amount of advertising in it?

Bang Bang Miss AmericaBang Bang Miss America Registered User regular
edited October 2007 in Games and Technology
Just wondering, If a game had say, advertising in the loading screen, start-up and the items you buy (Starbucks cup of coffee, chocolate bar etc.), would you put up with that, if you could pay 2 dollars for it?

Let's say this game is a fairly hyped game and would get in the 8-9 range of review scores.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyxz
Bang Bang Miss America on
«1

Posts

  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No, thank you though.

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ThandorThandor __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    If the advertising didn't upset the displacement of belief. I wouldn't buy starbucks coffee life+ items, but adverts on loading screens are ok. A coca cola machine instead of bobs coke machine would be ok too.

    Thandor on
  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Or if it was Pepsiman...


    Actually I would pay 50$ for a new Pepsiman game..

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • eelektrikeelektrik Southern CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It would have to be a modern day game where the ads would make sense within the gameworld on billboards and storefronts and such. Nothing along the lines of Taco Bell in the movie Demolition Man.

    eelektrik on
    (She/Her)
  • Recoil42Recoil42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The question shouldn't be whether consumers will put up with it. This is not a question for them/us.

    The question should be whether developers are willing to break their artistic vision in order for it to happen. It's a question for the developers.

    And it's highly subjective, based on the actual game. Starbucks in my Mario, or Killer7? No thanks. Starbucks in my The Sims, or Rainbow Six: Vegas? Yeah, ok, maybe.

    The real question is whether you're making a game that's entertainment, or art. Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, or The Godfather? Both are excellent movies, it's just they're excellent in different ways, and we forgive the product placement in one, where we could most certainly not in the other.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is it's a very mu like question, it can't possibly apply in the general sense, and you're a fool to ask it. It's just frankly a bit of a silly question.

    As well, snapping back to reality in the root of the quetion, no reasonable amount of product placement could bring a decent, well budgeted game's price down to $2, anyways. It's just not possible. So it's a moot point anyways, even if you could theoretically get an answer. It'd never apply, in the real world.

    Recoil42 on
  • JAEFJAEF Unstoppably Bald Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I payed $2 for Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved for PC. I would not have payed $2 if there were ads.

    JAEF on
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think a lot depends on whether or not this 2-dollar ad-supported version is the ONLY way to get the game. If it was simply another way of getting the game, which is still available through normal retail channels for $50/60 or whatever, then sure, I don't see too much harm in having that particular model. I'd personally use it as a "try before you buy" model (similar to how web-versions of casual games help sell the deluxe/download version). $2 is chump change, if it lets me experience the game to some degree (while still providing some income back to the developer). If I end up wanting the full experience with ads, then I can still get that.

    Now, if it's the only way to get the game ... then no. Unless it happens to adopt some other alternative pricing scheme (such as micro-transactions, buying items, etc.), but that's a different topic.

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, we had Sneak King, PocketBike Racer, and Big Bumpin', all three of which were pretty much the definition of advergaming. If my memory serves me well, didn't they originally "retail" for like five or six bucks? Their quality was debatable, but they were technically full-sized games.

    I could see a $2 game making the rounds, but more than likely it would be on some digital distribution as opposed to a pressed disc to save money. The problem is, you have to make sure that the game isn't a steaming pile of shit like

    yarisxblaai0.jpg

    Yaris here because if people aren't happy with a shitty advergame they got for free, what makes you think they'll pay actual cash money for another one?

    Einhander on
  • Bang Bang Miss AmericaBang Bang Miss America Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Just to put it out there, I am not talking about a tiny mini/microgame sort of thing, I'm talking about a full, "put a lot of hours in to" game.

    Bang Bang Miss America on
    abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyxz
  • jedijzjedijz Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jedijz on
    Goomba wrote: »
    It is no easy task winning a 1v3. You must jump many a hurdle, bettering three armies, the smallest.

    Aye, no mere man may win an uphill battle against thrice your men, it takes a courageous heart and will that makes steel look like copper. When you are that, then, and only then, may you win a 1v3.

    http://steamcommunity.com/id/BlindProphet
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Einhander wrote: »
    Well, we had Sneak King, PocketBike Racer, and Big Bumpin', all three of which were pretty much the definition of advergaming. If my memory serves me well, didn't they originally "retail" for like five or six bucks? Their quality was debatable, but they were technically full-sized games.

    The burger king games actually sold pretty freaking well, and if people were willing to basically pay more than $2 to be advertised at, I don't see why subsidized games would be that big a problem.

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    jedijz wrote: »

    Good point.

    Problem is, we're talking about a new game that is developed specifically to be delivered at a lower price point and with ads included from the beginning, not just an older game that has some ads slapped on the loading screens.

    Those games were originally developed to be full releases, regular games with regular budgets being sold for $49.99 in a store somewhere, without in-game ads. The game that the OP is suggesting is something that is intended to be sold for a low price with the tradeoff being the game is filled to the brim with advertisements.

    Einhander on
  • EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Spoit wrote: »
    Einhander wrote: »
    Well, we had Sneak King, PocketBike Racer, and Big Bumpin', all three of which were pretty much the definition of advergaming. If my memory serves me well, didn't they originally "retail" for like five or six bucks? Their quality was debatable, but they were technically full-sized games.

    The burger king games actually sold pretty freaking well, and if people were willing to basically pay more than $2 to be advertised at, I don't see why subsidized games would be that big a problem.

    Well, I don't know how much of their success could be attributed to The King's pop culture status, but I personally bought Sneak King because of the "That woman is about to be raped with value" post someone made on these very forums.

    I think that with game prices hitting $60 now, a low priced game would sell in spades as long as the ads weren't overly intrusive. I could see walking past actual product billboards or having a can of Mountain Dew and some Cheetos on my loading screen, but as soon as I see "Ach! Mein thirsten!" and I have to hit the spacebar to quench my thirst with a can of delicious Sprite, I'm turning it off.

    On a side note, I just noticed that advergaming (as far as I know) seems to be supported entirely by food manufacturers. The Burger King games, Mcdonalds in Prince of Persia, and Subway in Counter-Strike are the three biggest proponents/offenders that I can think of, and they're all fast food.

    Something to think about.

    Einhander on
  • Disco BanditDisco Bandit Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, I think the OP tried to clarify when he said it would get an 8 or a 9 from the review sites. However, this still leaves it up in the air, as most review sites are... poorly written.

    If it was a sports game, or an action game, with "Sprite" and "Coca Cola" instead of soda machines, and maybe you eat "Huge Costco Muffins" to replenish health... sure, I'd buy that in a heart beat. For 2$? My college budget says "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

    However, in a fantasy game? No way. I refuse to play Dragon quest 9 with "Powerbar" as my main health potion. However, I do believe that if a company tried this, they'd do it in more realistic (read: modern) games where it would not be so out of place.

    ITT: yeah I'd probably buy it

    Disco Bandit on
    Pokemon Diamond: 5412 9146 7564
  • DarkSymphonyDarkSymphony Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    honestly? I have grown accustomed to paying assloads of money for a game and I suppose I've gotten to the point where I don't mind paying that much. Yeah, I'd love to pay less, but at the cost of being taken out of the game and having many "pfft oh what the hell? dorito's brand life ups?" moments? I dunno, if that's what it means I'd rather just pay full price. If, however, it means that in a modern day game, like Burnout or Rainbow Six or anything along the lines of being in a modern city, then yeah you'd see a starbucks or burger king on the side of the road. That right there makes perfect sense and in fact would then create more of a sense of immersion because you can believe that in a modern city you would see said burger king on that very road. loading screens with logo's and brand names? hmmm I'm a tad indifferent on that. If, say, it made the loading screen ugly as fuck? no thanks. I don't want to load up some AAA title that is the best thing ever created only to see, every few minutes, this huge gigantic ugly ass piss yellow screen with the golden arches. It'd be like playing Deus Ex and you got to this really awesome part of the game, the loading screen comes up and you're all excited for the next part and you see.....a disgustingly huge ad for "enhance your gameplay with GAME FUEL!!!! you suck at games unless you drink our aweful drink!!". I would then commence the rolling of the eyes and just look back at my experience with such a AAA title and remember the annoyance of the loading screen.

    DarkSymphony on
  • -SPI--SPI- Osaka, JapanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I was thinking about this and my train of thought led me to this:

    I wonder if they're going to put Cool-spot on the virtual console. :lol:

    -SPI- on
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If advertising is done by means of billboards, modeled cans that roll around in the street and Mountain Dew wants to be the company with the sprite wraped around it, thats cool. But adds poping up through either the loading menu, popping up in the HUD, or on the back of ones gun, will cause me to place the install disc into the microwave, a much better show in fact.

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    And every post after mine mentions food or drinks.

    I don't think we'd see games as the OP suggests at all, though.

    The ideal for gamers is you can walk down a street in a game and pass a McDonald's, and see a Toyota Camry drive by, and pass a rack of GamePro magazines and some Cocal Cola vending machines, pass a billboard for Nike shoes, and another for the Gap, and go on doing your thing. These ads aren't intrusive, they simply add to the realism of the game world. If I'm walking down a street in a fps and an empty bag of doritos is on the ground, that's not getting in the way of my gameplay.

    But, we're already seeing stuff like this. Tony Hawk's Underground had a McDonald's in the New York level, and every game since THPS4 has had Jeeps in it. The THPS series practically assaults you with advertising since nearly every article of clothing you can buy in-game is licensed. But it's fairly common in other games as well. The NFS Underground games saddle you with a Cingular cell phone. You can see billboards for Axe bodyspray in Burnout 3. Sam Fisher used a Palm way back in the original Splinter Cell. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. These games were all full price.

    I don't know if I trust an advertising company to be able to draw the line between realistic/immersive, and overdone/irritating.

    Einhander on
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yea... if it becomes to the point where everytime you shoot someone in the head a window pop up saying "HeadShot! sponsored by Old Spice - get your smell on" 'please click close'. I will GIVE the dev's $2$ buxs to stick that shit up their ass.

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Recoil42 wrote: »
    The question shouldn't be whether consumers will put up with it. This is not a question for them/us.

    The question should be whether developers are willing to break their artistic vision in order for it to happen. It's a question for the developers.

    I'm pretty sure it's equal amounts of both, considering that video games are both an artistic medium AND big business.

    And I'm pretty sure publishers are primarily concerned with the former issue and not the latter.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • LethardicusLethardicus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    chexquestcover.jpg

    this game still kicked ass, and it was free

    Lethardicus on
  • Dodge AspenDodge Aspen Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I would pay 50 dollars for any game that was awesome and I would find fun. The OP says if a game is 8-9 out of 10 quality, would you buy it for $2, even if it had a ton of ads. If the ads really took away from the game, it wouldn't get good reviews, would it?

    Dodge Aspen on
    Xbox - Dodge Mega
    Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018

  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If it's a fairly hyped game that gets in the range of 8-9's as you put it (ie. a game i'd actually enjoy and look forward to), then it pretty much depends on how intrusive/detrimental the ads are to the game. Putting ads for tampax in Okami or Lost Planet isn't going to fly, while billboards in Call of Duty 4 or Crackdown could actually benefit the game because it adds a tangible everyday name to a relevant game world that can support the art and design direction.

    It's not the fact that ads are in a game, it's COMPLETELY a mattar of how you use and how little you abuse them.

    Polago on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I would pay 50 dollars for any game that was awesome and I would find fun. The OP says if a game is 8-9 out of 10 quality, would you buy it for $2, even if it had a ton of ads. If the ads really took away from the game, it wouldn't get good reviews, would it?

    This too. Uncharted for $2? Sign me up! :D

    Polago on
  • ScrumtrulescentScrumtrulescent Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Burger King games were amazing, everyone who says otherwise is stupid.


    Anyway, it's like Recoil said. It depends on the game. If it takes place in a magical fantastical world, I don't want anything messing that up. However, if it's a game like GRAW or Rainbow Six, then sure, go for it. Just don't rub it in my face.

    "You guys go kill that drug lord. I'm going to go enjoy my nice hot cup of Starbucks Coffee!"

    Just have, you know, stores along the street every once in a while.

    Scrumtrulescent on
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No, it would be a modern setting and most likely a FPS. No on both counts.

    Magic Pink on
  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yes, no question, don't even need to pause and think about it. Cheaper games = good. If advertising makes cheap happen, I'm okay with that. I'd not want to see Burger King billboards in the middle of a town in Oblivion, but beyond that, sure, whatever. Loading screen ads? Send 'em my way, thanks -- IF it slashes dollars off the price of the game, that is.

    Shoegaze99 on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't have time to do this today. But If you believe that Ads in a game would lower it's price then you fail to understand Capitalism, and wrongly believe that the money you pay monthly for cable reduces the amount of adverts the channels have, and think the price rise in games this gen is down to "development costs" of developing HD games compared to say, PC games, rather than pricing at what the market can support - which is economics 101. And believe downloadable content is only developed after the game ships.

    There are three situations:
    1) - No adverts in the game and you pay as much as they can possible get away with.
    2) - Adverts in the game and
    • You still pay as much as they can possible get away with.
    • Artistic integrity is destroyed
    • Artistic freedom is curtailed ('no homosexuals please if you want our money as we don't want to offend the religious right' - see the film knocked up, and the subject of abortion.)
    • The fiscal viability of "non-real world games" are put in danger. (Shall we spend $2m developing a game we can sell for $50 or $2m devloping a game set in the real world which we can sell for $50 and put adverts in for extra money.
    • Or Immersion is destroyed by having the 2007 advertising campaign for the UK navy being put in billboards in a sci-fi future city of crackdown.
      3) - There are adverts in the game, and so they give you the game for free. This method still suffers the flaws of 2), but hey, you didn't pay for it.

      I really support 1) and 3) (hell I made a thread about ubisoft doing number 3 it so impressed me.) But really, really think about the consequences of 2). I know it seems fine, and that "adverts are everywhere anyway" but that doesn't make it ok. And no amount of "adding to the realism" will help when 'GAP' vitos the developer discussing child labour in it's RPG, or some right wing company will remove its ads from The Sims 3 if they keep homosexuality in.

      I know that sounds ridiculous, but it does happen. As I've said before desperate housewives got product placement from a car company. It's car had to 1) be a storyline, 2) be shown for X mins an episode, and 3) be mentioned X times an episode. Sure the 'real' car added 'realism' to desperate housewives - but at no point did it actually add to the art.

      You might think 'they're just games' - but I think they are more than that, they can move us, and teach us, and inspire us, and their developers need more respect for them, than filling them full of ads.

    Lave II on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Oh and to reiterate. A $2 game with ads would never be equal to that of a $60 game. At that price point they should drop the charge, but probably wouldn't. The Game Industry has a strange situation where it's fans are so rabid they will pay huge amounts for games that "normal" people wouldn't. Thats why the Wii with it's "casual" audience has not increased prices.

    I mean, for example, Gametrailers puts adverts before the adverts you are watching.

    Think about that.

    Lave II on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    yes.

    LewieP on
  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    FarCry = free with ads.

    So that's a nice thing.

    Shoegaze99 on
  • MachismoMachismo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I bought all three of the Burger King games.
    I enjoyed them. There were worth the couple extra bucks I paid.

    So ya, so long as you don't have a Pepsi ad in Jerusalem as I answer the call of the Crusades in Medieval 2: Total War.

    Machismo on
    steam_sig.png
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Machismo wrote: »
    I bought all three of the Burger King games.
    I enjoyed them. There were worth the couple extra bucks I paid.

    So ya, so long as you don't have a Pepsi ad in Jerusalem as I answer the call of the Crusades in Medieval 2: Total War.

    As long as ads in games don't make games like Medieval 5: Even Totaller War convert to modern settings to capitalise advertising you mean,

    Lave II on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    background ads, yes, pick-ups, no.

    The moment I found out that I had to stop at the "Jolt" machine to regain health in Monster Madness, and the overdone angsty anti-establishment character started talkingabout why she liked Jolt, even though it IS popular, etc., I decided that the game was a steaming pile

    Evander on
  • gneGnegneGne Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I agree that adverts would probably never make games cheaper, atleast not that cheap (2$). I mean, advertising in games is already happening, but it is spent on the development of the game itself since they cost alot more than they used to.

    gneGne on
    pasigcopyox6.jpg
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    gneGne wrote: »
    I agree that adverts would probably never make games cheaper, atleast not that cheap (2$). I mean, advertising in games is already happening, but it is spent on the development of the game itself since they cost alot more than they used to.

    Bingo. As much as I despise advertising sometimes, it has helped in keeping game prices relatively stable, despite inflation and rising development costs.

    And yes, not every game is conducive for having in-game ads (for example, I don't think there's any good place to stick an ad in Mario, Zelda, or Halo). Thus, for games set in realistic times where you can have ads, they'll tend to be bombarded to make up the difference for the publisher.

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    gneGne wrote: »
    I agree that adverts would probably never make games cheaper, atleast not that cheap (2$). I mean, advertising in games is already happening, but it is spent on the development of the game itself since they cost alot more than they used to.

    Bingo. As much as I despise advertising sometimes, it has helped in keeping game prices relatively stable, despite inflation and rising development costs.

    And yes, not every game is conducive for having in-game ads (for example, I don't think there's any good place to stick an ad in Mario, Zelda, or Halo). Thus, for games set in realistic times where you can have ads, they'll tend to be bombarded to make up the difference for the publisher.

    No it hasn't.

    Games this Gen have risen from an RRP of £30-£40 (~$50) to £40-£50 ($60).

    Thats not how a corperation works. It's not a replacement revenue stream, it's an additional one.

    Seriously, this is the nonsense they feed you to make you buy it. It's the same corporate legitimising which says that rumble didn't work in the SixaxiS for technical not legal reasons.

    And whether games are conductive for advertising has little bearing for who gets what like adverts in sci-fi Crackdown, or those Nick Cage Ghost Rider adverts in that game set in 2300.

    Lave II on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Just wondering, If a game had say, advertising in the loading screen, start-up and the items you buy (Starbucks cup of coffee, chocolate bar etc.), would you put up with that, if you could pay 2 dollars for it?

    Let's say this game is a fairly hyped game and would get in the 8-9 range of review scores.

    Would you download a free copy of FarCry?

    rayofash on
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    JCRooks wrote: »
    gneGne wrote: »
    I agree that adverts would probably never make games cheaper, atleast not that cheap (2$). I mean, advertising in games is already happening, but it is spent on the development of the game itself since they cost alot more than they used to.

    Bingo. As much as I despise advertising sometimes, it has helped in keeping game prices relatively stable, despite inflation and rising development costs.

    And yes, not every game is conducive for having in-game ads (for example, I don't think there's any good place to stick an ad in Mario, Zelda, or Halo). Thus, for games set in realistic times where you can have ads, they'll tend to be bombarded to make up the difference for the publisher.

    No it hasn't.

    Games this Gen have risen from an RRP of £30-£40 (~$50) to £40-£50 ($60).

    Thats not how a corperation works. It's not a replacement revenue stream, it's an additional one.

    Seriously, this is the nonsense they feed you to make you buy it. It's the same corporate legitimising which says that rumble didn't work in the SixaxiS for technical not legal reasons.

    And whether games are conductive for advertising has little bearing for who gets what like adverts in sci-fi Crackdown, or those Nick Cage Ghost Rider adverts in that game set in 2300.

    Yes, prices have risen $10 for games this generation, but it's still pretty good when you consider inflation. For example, take a look at this article. As a kid, I also remember certain RPGs sometimes costing more than $50-60 dollars then. Then, of course, there are those silly Neo Geo games which cost over $100 and more.

    I should also point out that I'm biased, since I work in one of those evil game producing corporations. :P

    But it's not difficult at all to see costs rising. Heck, go find one of the many Escapist articles that talk about this. Seemingly every new game requires legions of voice actors, an army of artists/designers, and a ton of testers working on games that are becoming ever more complicated to test.

    While I am not a fan of advertising (is anyone?), I do think that in the right circumstances, it can be beneficial. Arguably, this can only happen if the consumer is a willing participant. For example, in games where the setting is right (realistic or semi-realistic games, even those set in the future), or where the consumer is getting a deep discount.

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • GrathGrath I'm a much happier person these days Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Imagine getting the newest final fantasy and all the items (potions,antidotes stuff like that) were all bought out by pharmaceutical companies and renamed.

    "Make sure to stock up on plenty of Advil and Claratin before you go into the forest caves"

    Grath on
Sign In or Register to comment.