With this added source of revenue, surely game prices will go down...

HA!

Is it just me or has the soul of the industry I love to follow (and participate in) been carved out by short sighted businessmen looking to make a buck and pad their stock portfolio.

I really hope something changes, perhaps a revolution, or perhaps I find something else to do for fun.

"Videogames represent an underutilized advertising vehicle that provides advertisers with real-life integration of products and entertainment"

Great so next thing I know loading screens will be implemented into next-gen games so they can throw a FMV ad in there,instead of putting that space to real use toward the game itself? Great! Sign me up for the future of videogaming!! Woo hoo next gen!!! Who hoo to Ubisoft for being one of the early pioneers!!!! *rolls eyes*

One could argue that it would be hypocritical for me to bash this yet not bash Nintendo for the product placement in Pikmin 2. Well there's a difference and it's based entirely on how the company handles the situation. Ubisoft is releasing a press release about their in-game advertising. Sure they say stupid crap like how it adds realism or whatever but they're saying outright that these product placements are advertisements. It's one thing to do it. It's another to be so frank about it.

With Pikmin 2 Nintendo didn't make a big deal about in-game advertisements. As a result the whole thing seemed more sincere like it really was to add to the experience. Now I'm sure they got paid for the product placements but it came across more like they felt that having real world items people can relate to improved the game and getting paid to make the game better was just a nice bonus. Now maybe that wasn't Nintendo's intention. Maybe they just wanted the cash but at least there's an illusion that it might be for artistic reasons.

With Ubisoft there's no illusion. We know it's an ad because they just made a big deal about it. If you're going to be a mindless corporation with no artistic integrity at least try to fool us for a little while. They've hired another company to put the ads in. No one hires an advertising company to add realism to a game.

It's like when a movie has the main character in front of Times Square in New York in it. Times Square has corporate logos and advertisments. There's a McDonald's in Times Square and the golden arches always stand out in pictures of it. To be authentic that McDonald's should be there. But Ubisoft isn't doing that. They're having the main character walk in front of a McDonald's for no reason.

If government agents are assigned Nokia products in real life then go ahead and put it in the game. Otherwise though there's no realism with having Sam Fisher (whose method of spying is pretty ficitional to begin with) using Nokia products. It's an ad and we know it's an ad so it's not to add to the realism it's to make money.

Let's not forget about the Dole bananas! I argue it added further humor to Super Monkey Ball

so, the games are going to be free, right?

You know...in the game Crazy Taxi, all the real world locations like KFC and Tower Records and stuff were put in the game for realism, and just realism. None of them were placement products, KFC didn't pay a dime. I can't remember where I heard this news so I might be wrong, feel free to correct me.

On the plus side, I now know what AMD stands for...

Quote

---

One could argue that it would be hypocritical for me to bash this yet not bash Nintendo for the product placement in Pikmin 2.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If you're going to be a mindless corporation with no artistic integrity at least try to fool us for a little while.

---

Sounds like a plan! I can't wait to start sneaking around in the next Splinter Cell only to have the character's Nokia 6820™ go off as someone wants to tell me how I can save $80 on my car insurance. Joy. ^_^ Actually, that would be rather hilarious to sneak up behind someone only to have that happen.

I don't feel that this is really all that bad.
If Sonic starts wearing nikes, then we'll have a problem.

Whatever. This is no different than Pikmin 2... if anything, at least Ubisoft is honest about it.

And this is coming from the king of all Ubisoft haters. We've got a lot of bad blood between us.

Pac-Man was probably an ad for pill manufacturers, this has been going on for awhile now

ET Atari, Kool-Aid Atari, etc

Quote

---

Originally posted by: TVman
I don't feel that this is really all that bad.
If Sonic starts wearing nikes, then we'll have a problem.

---

Reminds me of Tony Kee's "You're gonna pay!" quote at DICE last year. http://www.planetgamecube.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=8351

There's actually an entire Forum coming up on this very subject: http://www.advertisingingames.com/

I'm shocked (ok maybe not) that Ubisoft needs to have a press release for this. Its not like publishers have never done this before. What's next they have a press release telling us that they including a start screen in all of their games now?

So THAT's why I saw a Soap logo during the credits in Sonic Adventure 2. I thought they did sound support or something, so their advertising didn't work on me.

I'm going to claim ignorance how this works. Do companies such as Nokia go to Ubisoft and go "Hey can you put in one of our products in your game" or is Ubisoft going to Nokia's door and say "Hey we want to add some more realism to our game. Can we use your phone? (bad joke intended)"

If its the former, publishers should take a few dollars off for the consumer. With analysts (granted they're wrong when it comes to video games) and publishers such as Activision saying costs are going up, use this keep costs down. But that assumes they care about the consumers....

If its the latter, is there really a need to make a franchise like Splinter Cell more authentic? Its got the Tom Clancy label on it for goodness sakes. I doubt black ops agents use commercial grade products, it'd too easy to counter.

There's an "Advertisment in Games" forum coming soon to NYC (I see Flash ads for it on Gamespot all the time). They should seriously talk about using this as way of keeping costs down if what 'analysts' and publishers are saying is true. If the day ever comes where the next Madden, Need for Speed Underground, or Splinter Cell are 60 dollars here in America, and are full of advertisments, I may very well stop gaming. I'll just go and buy all the old games I missed, and never buy a current title again.

EDIT: Bloodworth beats me to punch about the Ads in Game Forums. I really should type faster....

I can see it now... "Sam Fisher wears Axe™ Deodorant Body Spray. Shouldn't you?"

I don't understand the need to jump down people's throats. I have no problem with in game advertising as long as it doesn't detract from teh experience, press release or not. If I'm playing a driving game and I see a billboard for a real product thats fine. No big deal. If it gets to the points where I have to click through ad screens before I even start playing....then I'll be pissed.

I asked my brother who has a pretty casual interest in games (not in a Madden way but in a way where he plays Conker multiplayer, Contra-style shmups, beat-em-ups, 2D Mario and little else) what he thinks about ads in games. He thought it would be awesome because years from now it will be neat to play old games and see old ads for products that might not even exist anymore. He compared it to an old tape we used to have where we recorded Return of the Jedi off TV and as kids we knew every commercial on it by heart including a funny Star Trek parody for A&W Cream Soda and McDonalds Summer Combos (food, folks, & fun). So there's an interesting perspective. Being pro-ad because of the nostalgia involved with old commercials.

It does add to the realism of a game that is supposed to be set in our real world. Obviously, there's extremes that it can be taken to, but if a character's car is a Honda or he eats a Twinkie rather than some made-up brands, it's realistic. Of course, we don't want cheesy, in-our-face product placements, but in many places it makes sense to have real world items if the situation calls for it.

I have actually been waiting for this to become more common in the industry because in the past, publishers had to pay and beg companies to allow them to license an image in their game if it would somehow improve the atmosphere.

Obviously, I don't want Sam Fischer to stop in the middle of a cutscene and say, "All of this spy eqiupment makes me too hot. Let me just chug down a can of Coca-Cola with Lime - now in both Diet and Regular flavors - before I continue on... Ah, that was incredibley refreshing. Bring it on you international terrorists and conspiracy plotters!" But if he has a cel phone and it just says Nokia on it, then what's the big deal?

The reviewers and consumers will decide what is acceptable. Just as Hollywood movies get slammed when their product placements are too cheesy and loud, a game the same will happen to games. It won't be that big of a deal.