In-game ads: another perspective

Soaring costs and lengthy development cycles mean that game companies will need to look to brand sponsorship, but even when they do, there's a right and wrong way to implement the strategy

While next-gen consoles such as the PlayStation 3 bring bigger and better graphics, physics simulations, and cutscenes to gamers, the downside is that now games take an increasingly long time and cost millions of dollars to make. According to Namco Bandai's president, Takeo Takasu, the average PlayStation 3 game costs his company $8.6 million to develop and 500,000 copies must be sold before the company breaks even.

These costs may mean that independent developers are unable to make games for next-gen platforms, unless they can find additional ways of securing funding.

Bunnyfoot is an Oxford, UK-based behavioural research consultancy which specalises in using eye-tracking technology and consumer engagement. It works with game developers, Web sites, and TV advertisers to try to create more-effective advertising solutions. Its head of visual engagement, Alison Walton, spoke to GameSpot to explain its new technology and findings.

Walton believes that getting big name brands to provide money for in-game advertising is going to be crucial. She said, "Development costs are getting astronomical and developers have got to fund it somehow. I personally think it's a good idea to get brands involved."

Walton also points to studies that have found that most in-game advertising is ineffective. Bunnyfoot believes that this is because most of this advertising doesn't engage the gamer. The company employs an "emotive engagement model" which uses an eye-tracking device that records the area the player is watching on the screen. It also measures other physiological data to see when the player is most emotionally engaged in the game, and moments of peak excitement.

Walton says, "People don't look in the same places in an actual football game [on TV] and a video football game. It's not the same as passive watching with your mates." Therefore, says Bunnyfoot, typical in-game advertising placement in current football games is ineffective, since it's following a model that works only in real life--adverts round the perimeter of the pitch, for example.

Also, some advertising may be within the player's line of vision--for example, on the sides of the track in a racing game, but may be associated with a negative emotion. Walton adds, "There was one game where the only time the player was engaging with the brand was when he kept missing this one corner and hitting the wall with an advert over and over again. So he'd be there for 10 or so seconds, looking at the ad while he tried to get back in the race. But, do you want your brand to be associated with that level of frustration? Positive emotional association is just as important."

The company says its emotive engagement model predicts peak receptiveness levels to help brands better place their advertising. As in real estate, the mantra "location, location, location" seems appropriate for the game space.

52 Comments

  • BunnyfootUK

    Posted Dec 25, 2006 3:59 am GMT

    I understand some of your feelings towards in game advertising, I don't want to play a game and have all the cutscenes packed with poorly executed product placement either, nor do I want enjoyment spoiled by badly integrated outdoor campaigns. At Bunnyfoot we are working to create integrated in game advertising that enhances game play, not spoils it. We use eye tracking and physiological data together with the PEEP methodology to understand which parts of the in game advertising players engage with positively and negatively. Rigorously testing games and in game advertising in this way makes better games and better in game advertising.

  • _Sam_

    Posted Dec 20, 2006 2:55 pm GMT

    I don't like any type of In-game advertising

  • GrimBee

    Posted Dec 13, 2006 4:07 pm GMT

    Maybe we could WIN a voucher for said product instead? that would be cool... like... with gran turismo, you have to "race" rival cars (and win the race) which names begin with the same letters which are featured in the product which you want to buy...

    For example...

    A Corvette, Opel, Karmann, Edonis...... Geddit? COKE! You then get a voucher, which enables you to get a product for 20 cents less in store....

    Ok ok... game advertising will suck if done improperly. Lets keep it sane shall we? I dont want any crazy ads all over the place like some MCFLY video or something! come on! GAMES! People LIKE games! why ruin a good thing?!

  • nesto423

    Posted Dec 13, 2006 2:30 pm GMT

    we should get paid for watching them is the best i have heard!!

  • jjxbox

    Posted Dec 13, 2006 11:40 am GMT

    I wouldn't mind in game advertising. I like having realistic ads on GTA and things like that, especially if they added some sort of comedy to them.

    As for constant branding on all types of items, I don't agree with that. Even if they add advertising we're only looking at small amounts of money i'd say about £2/$4 maximum per game at most unless it really hits off.

    "Free" games as someone said....lol.

  • gatsbythepig

    Posted Dec 13, 2006 10:34 am GMT

    Since I have to look at the ad, my game should be cheaper.

  • GrimBee

    Posted Dec 13, 2006 4:11 am GMT

    Well, I think that PS3 will have the most ads, 360 will have the second most, and the wii will have the least (if any).

    The PS3 has a "free" internet to fund, so its not just GAMES on the ps3 that will have ads. Its the free internet service. This will eventually come into place, just you wait and see!

    Next up on the list would be product placement.. more realistic games means that somewhere along the line, companies like cocacola etc will want to advertise their products in games.
    Can you imagine a metal gear game, with snake drinking diet coke?? This will happen for sure... but the game-world can go in many directions as there is a lot of control of the end product. A movie has only a certain amount of screen time, whereas a game can have an advert or product right the way through it.

    Which is what the most annoying thing is -

    I remember games like Super Hang On.. signs like the "BIRD BIRD" thing... etc etc. Ads like this are quite non-intrusive, as those types of signs (like in formula 1 racing etc) are there in their real-life counterparts.
    But when you have a game like GTA, and the ads are on shirts, cars, billboards, on the radio... etc. It can be very annoying, as the ads will HAVE to be there, so the money spent is well... er... spent.

    Aslong as the ads are tastefully done, I could care less. I actually like product names on signs, etc. Like if there was a HAVOLINE ad on a car, or a COKACOLA logo on a hat... but when its entire masses of billboards all over the place, and basically a character constantly wearing branded items, this can commercialise the game, ruin the atmosphere of the game (gta series had its own products, which to their own merits actually added DEPTH to the gaming world).

    But if these adverts are intrusive, constantly on loading screens, having cities with billboards for no reason at all (like, every building has an ad on it for example)... this would get annoying.

    I say, it all depends on the game. If its based on real-world things like football, formula 1 etc. The respective brands for those things can faithfully travel over to the gaming world, and it would actually help authenticate the experience.
    But with things like mario having a "mountain dew" t-shirt or something... no way.

  • Orthrand

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 8:33 pm GMT

    IMPORTANT: to get cheaper games stop buying pre owned ones just look at the cost of PC games Half Life 2 could be found for £30 at launch

    Actually the whole point of the article is that unobtrusive advertising doesant work. Companies executives are gonna see this type of reaserch and think that their advertising must be in your face.

    Advertising at key moments of player intreractivity sounds a lot like a big M appearing everytime you get a headshot.
    Besides the fact that advertising for the gaming demographic is limited.
    And the only console set to appeal to a wider audience will never have it. And big spreds on loading screens.
    ) Copies of games without advertising that are more expensive
    ) How will this affect the law, because many pc gamers will prbably find ways to remove advertising.

  • nesto423

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:48 pm GMT

    btw the game developers get paid money to make games using advertising ..... which "SHOULD MAKE OUR GAMES CHEAPER>>>> if not free.

  • nesto423

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:47 pm GMT

    in game advertising is the only reason i dont buy 2142 ... after seeing progressive vans .... "progressive insurance" on nd for speed carbon ... i didnt like it as much. "my friends and i ... have boycott the game ..our whole css and 1.6 and bf2 clan boycotted it . also .... morgan webb w/her morgan minute is so on point w/her advertisement abuse campaign . go MORGAN!!!

  • RonHack

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:11 pm GMT

    Oh sure, ads help.

    Just take a look at EA's "Battlefield 2142", and see how popular that game is.

    I mean, everyone really wants that game, because they use this cool technology to download the ad in real-time, taking longer than before to run and load the game.

    Oh, and I found the hidden pizza too, which is why I won that Ferrari from them.



    Hah!

  • acu02151

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 3:40 pm GMT

    Notice what they are talking about people. They are not saying put ads everywhere they say just put them in the few places where they will be most receptive to the player. I mean I don't really care wether there are ads in my games or not as long as they don't interfere with game play, I mean if suddenly the main character to a break to start talking about his new retro 2006 converse trainers then I may start to get annoyed.

  • Mark2099

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 2:53 pm GMT

    its sad, but this will be apart of our future games

  • axillia

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 6:49 am GMT

    Ads are totally unnecessary in games. If publishers want to place ads in games then the prices of games need to drop dramatically.

    Or game companies can come up with new ways to play games, i.e. Nintendo, so it doesn't cost tens of millions of dollars to produce games and the advertisers will not be necessary.

  • dragonsama

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 6:37 am GMT

    all can say is this. if they do constant ads and "in your face" ads it will not help the product. it will hurt it as gamers will say "I hate that thing it kept getting in my way during Generic Space Marine Shooter 7" and as such they will never buy that product.

  • cjcr_alexandru

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 6:33 am GMT

    Ads everywhere... We can't live without them.

  • Pangster007

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:31 am GMT

    http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25214524

    Post title: The developer's case

    I made this a few days ago, it's related a bit.

  • thefjk

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:30 am GMT

    I don't mind adds... AS LONG AS THEY DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF MY GAMING! If You are in the middle of a FF14 cutscene and some company advertises for a few seconds, that 'd be just evil! Keep 'em on the backgrounds and on posters like where real adverts stay... its not that hard to notice. Once you play a game a couple times you are bound to see it!

  • Cloud737

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 5:04 am GMT

    "The company employs an "emotive engagement model" which uses an eye-tracking device that records the area the player is watching on the screen."
    Why? So you can pop up ads everywhere I look, and move so that they would constantly be in my eyesight? Oh really, and who`s gonna buy that device? The gamers? Oh, so the gamers have to buy that device so that they can see the ads...
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    "It also measures other physiological data to see when the player is most emotionally engaged in the game, and moments of peak excitement."
    Right, so you want to pop up an ad in my face when I`m at my peak of glory and excitement so I can "view it better". That would be a very stupid strategy as it will only irritate me and and think negatively about the ad.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    "Walton also points to studies that have found that most in-game advertising is ineffective. Bunnyfoot believes that this is because most of this advertising doesn't engage the gamer."
    So what are YOU`RE suggestions about making it engage the gamer? Allow the gamers to throw the ads at enemies? That would be cool, cause I`ll just pick them up to throw the out the window. Or maybe make some ads that hit the main character in the face every 10 seconds. I don`t see any other way for the ads to engage the gamers. Oh, and gamers buy games to play, NOT TO VIEW YOUR F*KING ADS.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    "There was one game where the only time the player was engaging with the brand was when he kept missing this one corner and hitting the wall with an advert over and over again. So he'd be there for 10 or so seconds, looking at the ad while he tried to get back in the race."
    Lol, you think he was looking at the ad, or on the road? But I do agree that it was a stupid idea to place the ad there, because that`s like negative advertising, and it also makes the player think negatively about in-game ads, which btw, shouldn`t have been in games.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Also, don`t they even think about the user-base a game would receive? I mean, if the game sells poor, then the ads just eat up allot of money without returning any profit. It`s a waste of money, but can also encourage developers to make crappy games cause they`ll get most of the money back by introducing advertising into their games.

  • MAD_VD

    Posted Dec 12, 2006 3:11 am GMT

    I don't understand how these software houses who are making millions in profit year on year are saying they need ads to help with the rising cost of developing games sounds like more GREED again!.

    According to Namco Bandai's president, Takeo Takasu, the average PlayStation 3 game costs his company $8.6 million to develop and 500,000 copies must be sold before the company breaks even.

    That means every ps3 owner will have to buy a game. Takeo Takasu is a muppet its a new system wiat until there are millions of ps3's out there then they will see bigger returns for there work.

    Plus if they did not keep churning out the same crud over and over again who know what would happen.

  • azad_champ

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:26 pm GMT

    I don't want games to turn into TV

  • Iriseon

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 8:43 pm GMT

    I've got an idea: work on refining procedural textures and then you won't have to hire as many artists to constantly grind out textures. Save some money, storage space, and, potentially, time all at once. Or........you could put bumper stickers all over your product and become a vehicle for rampant consumerism and obscene cross-branding. Hey, maybe EB or Gamestop could get in on this too by reselling games under different sponsered deals like "20% off on Extreme Mountain Dew Sundays!!" I'd buy that for a dollar!!

  • VegetaMaelstrom

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 8:38 pm GMT

    It won't be long before we are playing FPS's and everyone looks like they are wearing Nascar uniforms with advertising on every possible square inch of available space. Or in Halo 3 the vehicles could be just covered in logos from Castrol and Toyota etc. When is this madness going to stop?

  • jazilla

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 5:16 pm GMT

    I want ads on my guns, and ads on my player characters that offer buffs and bonuses. Like a red bull patch that heightens accuracy or something. Yay, for immersion.

  • epormada

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 4:59 pm GMT

    Only a matter of time before we have a cut scene with Mario eaten Doritos and drinking a Pepsi...*sigh*

  • vaejas

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 4:32 pm GMT

    More blimps!!!

  • chibi-acer

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 4:18 pm GMT

    What I want to know is how much it costs to port a Japanese game to English. If language conversion doesn't cost much, otaku gamers can get more of the Japanese games in English speaking locations.

  • TWOC2689

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 2:45 pm GMT

    It ads realism but i'm not to sure about games that are set in fantasy

  • dramaybaz

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 2:29 pm GMT

    I don't want kind of like TV ads in the games. However, I am fine with ads that are part of the game such as in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Sam Fisher is chewing airwaves in a cutscene whil travelling on a helicopter listening to the briefing. Or like when there are Nokia Mobile Phone Screen savers on the computers in the game.

  • runstalker

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 2:03 pm GMT

    It's not like 360 and PS3 developers aren't able to make smaller, XBLA-style games for very little cost. The small devs can make some money here too, they just have to think a little smaller at first. To hell with using in-game ads to fill out your budget requirements [if they compromise the immersiveness of the game's environment].

  • capthunt

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:56 pm GMT

    "Walton also points to studies that have found that most in-game advertising is ineffective. Bunnyfoot believes that this is because most of this advertising doesn't engage the gamer."

    NO S**T. Its about playing the game, not ur ads. we dont buy games to get engaged into ur ads.

    Willy105
    "At least Wii, DS, or PSP games won't need ads. Thankfully"
    Yeh cuz my 5 year old brother could make the same thing LOL

  • jeebs213

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:47 pm GMT

    uh oh, overanalysing marketing consultants talking about video games. i'm getting nervous.

  • Willy105

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:20 pm GMT

    At least Wii, DS, or PSP games won't need ads. Thankfully.

  • stejmatty

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:18 pm GMT

    tv ads are so over rated, not many people realy buy the product because of that ad, and if they do, then they are just simply giving into the coruption of free will, every1 has an opinion, rite, so y should an ad give any more reason to do, or don't do anythin? EXACTLY! think about it

  • diablos101

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:15 pm GMT

    there must be another way, or we gonna get macdonalds based games and other various crap.... taking one paragraph further, would u want a brand to e associated with a crap game?

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 1:02 pm GMT

    I can't wait to see "Starbucks Offroad Racing" or "Samsung Golf" lol. What is is this industry coming to.

  • jaredgood1

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:41 pm GMT

    Meh. I'll just tune them out like I do TV commercials and product placements, noticing them as only curiosities. I quite honestly cannot remember the last time I purchased something solely based on an ad. Lord knows, watching Casino Royale didn't make me want to go out and buy Viaos or Sony brand cell-phones, just like tv ads don't make me want to go shopping at that Gap (I haven't even owned a pair of jeans in years). It's good that game companies are finding ways to offset dev costs, but it's a shame that it has to come from something as annoying as product placements.

  • Sam_Lowery

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:31 pm GMT

    If a game developer is going to get to pay less to make a game at the expence of OUR gaming experience than at the very least pass the savings on to us. But to keep the price high (or even raise it $10) and shove ads in my face is an insult. Real game companies that aren't suckered in by a quick buck should start putting little stickers on their games that say "100% add free" on the cover of their games, like a seal of quality, or a seal of anti-EA suckfest games, something like that.


    If you buy games with adds in them than your a sucker and your bringing down the enjoyment of every other gamer by making these kind of underhanded practices profotiable.

  • Benny_is_here

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:25 pm GMT

    Ads are nothing but good if you ask me. More ads mean more money to the people supplying you the product!

  • kinglink2

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:18 pm GMT

    Because they were talking to a PS3 developer.

    The biggest problem with rising costs is the fact that there's too much crap out there. If every game out there was good in some way people would by many more games, but because there's total crap in some many places, people can't just go indulge the need to buy every game, that's why 500,000 is so hard to do.

    If you focus and really spend the money making a great game you can sell 500,000 but if you use that money in every sort of way and remain unfocused you're just never going to sell anything.

    In addition a lot of times why a good game does bad and a bad game does good has a lot to do with advertising, and where they advertise the game. Or if they advertise.

  • Bananna2

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:09 pm GMT

    Haloooo 360 games cost a lot to make too not just PS3 games, so why didn't you put that to gamespot?????

  • JSharpe_187

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 12:03 pm GMT

    In game advertising is not that big a deal, as long as it isn't like "This cutscene brought to you by Chevy" or something like that. Little ads in the background or on bilboards in the background just make the game more realistic.

  • pal3_99

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:53 am GMT

    If it's like pikman 2's in-game advertising it's all right with me. It was fun finding the 7-up cap's and stuff.

  • the_real_VIP

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:41 am GMT

    Re SpareJesus: ahahahahaha

  • kyosukeugc

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:40 am GMT

    Compnies pay alot of money to put their ads anywhere... If we're going to see more ads, I want to see all game prices go back down to $49.99... and if we start seeing commercials when we pay for the games... omg, it's going to be a brawl!

  • SpareJesus

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:35 am GMT

    Kinda reminds me of a certain VGCats comic.

    "I'm being crushed by a delicious taste sensation! Now available in six-packs!"

  • WillT12345

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:24 am GMT

    I think more focus needs to be put on how to lower the cost of development.

  • aindovin

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:20 am GMT

    Oh boy! I love commercials! Can't get enough!

  • datniccah187

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:04 am GMT

    If thats the price we have to pay to make sure that we have good games, i can live with it. I don't like it, but it may be a nessesary evil.

  • eayoshi

    Posted Dec 11, 2006 11:03 am GMT

    If ads keeps the industry creative, then go for it, as long as it's done in good taste.

    The last thing I want to see are eighteen trailers and commercials in between loading screens and before the actual game begins, that I have no choice of skipping, much like a lot of DVDs these days.

    You can guarantee the game will be returned to the local Gamespot if it comes to that.

advertisement
Listen to the radio

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!