adverts on billboards in Pure or other games. good? bad?

[Dogg Thang]

[note by Lance: this is a discussion that developed into something completely offtopic in the thread about the Gamma download content of Pure. it was noted that it appears that it will be possible to insert any content into billboards in Pure, an ability that perhaps will be limited only to the developers, not the gameplayers. the following is the discussion of the consequences of this possibility.]:

That wouldn't really be an issue if you just had whatever you wanted in your own personal copy. Distributing copyrighted material would be an issue but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I mean, many of us are okay with graphics and would love to make out own logo for a billboard. If there is coding, as Egg was saying, to choose the billboards by colour then there is a limit to how much you could spoil the look.

Something has occurred to me though. Studio Liverpool/Sony with the Edge article and that Japanese footage seem to be pushing the ability to customise tracks as a feature. So far, there has been no mention of us being able to do that ourselves (which is why I had asked but haven't yet had an answer). So I was thinking - why push it as a feature in the media and not have it available to customers (unless as I said, it might be available in the future)?

The obvious answer that I can see is that Sony intend to sell advertising space in our Wipeout Pure.

Download a new track, get a godawful McDonalds billboard with it or some such ad which Sony can implement but the end user has no control over. Now, I'm biased probably because I hate such ads in real life and it would bug me no end to see such ads in Pure but that seems to me to be the only reason that they are publicising the ability to change billboards without allowing the user to do it.

Of course I would love Colin to tell me I'm wrong! I'm being paranoid, right?

[Concept]

I doubt the graphic designers would be best pleased about that, especially considering they supposedly weren't too pleased with the Hacker Skin (due to it not being intentional).

Maybe the billboard editing system will be used for promotional use, although I do recall it being stated there will be some available for users to download at some point.

[Sven]

Download a new track, get a godawful McDonalds billboard with it or some such ad which Sony can implement but the end user has no control over.

Even that wouldn't be as bad as NFSU2 with that damn cingular logo!

[Egg]

Then again ... 2097/XL was full of Red Bull sponsorship. At least the Euro version was; maybe our American allies can correct me if it was changed for the XL verson.

BTW --- users wouldn't be able to add animated billboards, only static ones. The animated stuff was done via our own exporter software.

[Concept]

True. You can add that to Psygnosis in-house adverisements for the likes of Tenka too.

Personally though, McDonald's adverts (or the cultural equivalent) would naff the look of Pure up something rotten though if they were enforced. It'd also be a step forward for the PSP's wireless/download capabilities that probably wouldn't be appreciated by many users.

Make no mistake though, once high speed net access is fully converged into the majority of games, it's (unfortunate) common sense that advertising space is going to be used more and more in games to generate further sources of revenue.

I just hope it isn't an obnoxious form of advertising... say for example an advert for a Britney Spears track being displayed in a hisotrical RTS would be a really, really bad move. It would shatter the immersion of the time period said game may be trying to express.

There's all sorts of niggly implications like that which have to be weighed up in the integration of online videogaming advertising, which force the ethical identity of a title into conflict with the financial gains/musts that may possibly be derived from use of adverts.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, it's your last sentence Concept where things get tricky.

And, yes, 2097 had Red Bull plastered all over it. I don't think that means that the door is wide open. I actually had no problem with the Psygnosis ads in WO1 (Crazy Ivan etc) in the same way that I don't have a problem with the record labels in Pure - because the people involved were an integral part of the process and all contributed greatly to the end product. It's a creative trade-off and I realise that.

Buuut...when that door is opened a little wider, things can take a turn for the disgusting. We've seen it in movies. I never went to see Castaway, for example, because even the trailer played out like a FedEx ad. And I Robot and Men in Black 2, well they weren't great films anyway, but to take breaks out of the story for their product placement is just vile. The flip-side of that is that big projects need money to be made and so a certain degree of sponsership, if implimented carefully and withing the creative framework of that product, can be okay.

But, like Concept said in his last line - it has many implications, there are very fine lines to be crossed and it can be as off-putting as it is financially rewarding. These, of course, are just my own personal opinion by the way - I do remember on the Fusion message boards ages ago people saying they actually wanted Red Bull ads back. So what do I know?!

By the way, I should add a little of where I'm coming from in this - I don't make games. However, I do face the exact dilemmas that I'm talking about as I'm a director. I direct (mostly) animated projects, cartoons, short films and even ads. Certain 'sponserships' have been suggested more than once. Working in ads gives you a clear picture of the mindset of advertisers and, with some exceptions of course, sometimes it's not pretty.

[infoxicated]

So, Egg, are you neither confirming nor denying the idea that advertising space in WO Pure might be sold? :wink:

You know, I believe it's questions like this on forums that have most game developers keeping well away.

[Dogg Thang]

Quite possibly, Infoxicated. Consider the question withdrawn.

[Colin Berry]

Here is the thing

Lets forget Wipeout Pure for the minute and talk hypothetically

a company intends to release extra content for a 3rd person shooter for free

to cover the cost to the company of making the extra content, they sell advertising space in the game

would you rather have the extra content and some adverts
or no extra content
or pay for the content - baring in mind you wouldnt just be paying for the content but also for the cost of setting up and maintening the purchasing functionality side of things

Now with Pure, I've no idea what the plan is, really I havent, its not my area and I'm concentrating on other stuff, but you cant just say gah we dont want mcdonalds adverts, without considering all the options if you see what I mean.

[Dogg Thang]

Interesting question Colin and a very valid one. Honestly, for me, to answer the exact question you have asked - I would rather pay for the content. I do realise that's just me. But the expansion system for, say, PC games seems to work pretty well in my opinion. A game in made, bought, and an expansion is developed bearing in mind that much of the development costs were covered the first time around as in graphics engines etc.

Where the added content becomes a problem in my mind (totally bearing in mind that this would not be down to you or your team!) is where content is deliberately held back in development.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it was SCEA's plan to sell ad space in Pure in the added content. It has been said that much of the added content is complete and, in some cases, it was decided that certain tracks would be held back as downloadable content. Then Sony sell the ad space. In this scenario, the advertising is not paying for the development of extra content as that has already been budgeted for. In this scenario, content is being removed (or at least held back) from the consumers in an attempt to generate extra revenue.

The other issue which has been brought up (and again, I realise this would not be down to the WO team) is that when advertising in games becomes a standard feature, certain aspects of that game will be tailored to the advertisers. For example, I would hate to think that the look of Pure and the placement of the billboards was there because Sony wanted to use it for advertising. Creatively that is a world away from your team placing those billboards there because your art department thought they looked great there. Know what I mean? By the way this is all hypothetical! Like I was saying in an earlier post, I'm a director and have had such requests myself.

But, yes, if you're looking for a simple answer to your question - I have no problem paying for content.

Edit: Sorry Colin, I'm now realised I should have stuck to your hypothetical example of a shooter or some such. Actually that's relevant to part of what I was saying as I get the distinct impression that Halo 2 was released unfinished. To charge for the game and then charge again for it to be finished (whether by paying for the extras or through advertising) would seem a little cheeky to me.

[Purist]

Chaps (and chapesess?) arn't we getting slightly away from the original title of the thread? :cry:

Surley I'm not the only one in the world with the GAMMA league

[Dogg Thang]

Of course, if it could be controlled, the other possibility would be to offer both 'free downloads with ads' and 'pay-to-download ad-free' content. In a way that would be similar to the choices we have with tv dvds at the moment though the distribution method would be different. I could watch a show on tv for 'free' where the ads are paying for the show or alternatively I could buy the season on dvd and watch it ad-free. The fact that some shows are doing so well on dvd makes this is a financially sustainable way of getting shows out there.

Oh and Purist, I think you are the only one here with the Gamma download! That's why we're all jealous

[Mobius]

Sorry purist, but going back to the advertising. If sony know pure is an asset, (Going even furter off, on amazon.com someone gave it one star saying it is just a repeat of and old series then goes to say need for speed: rivals is better - duh...speck-plank, honestly.)

Anyway, if sony know it is an asset, why would they kill it off with macdonalds adverts. I understand that they need to cover costs sometimes but don't sony have enough style to pick a more suitable company? Red bull in 2097 i thought was pretty cool - as it went with the theme of wipeout anyway (and the whole racing scene too).

For example, they could advertise another kind of futuristic thing. But not Chavvy macdonalds.

Oh BTW
Did anyone try and eat 2 meals with the vouchers through the post...? Never again...

[Lance]

.
i would rather pay for the content. being hit by tasteless crap, or even tasteful crap, that is there for the benefit of someone other than me, ruins the experience of the game [and movie, and anything]. here i am, playing something i have paid for, and i am stiLL getting adverts. that was the one failing of 2097/XL, those damned Red Bull ads. it's the same as my telephone service, which i pay for, getting used by companies trying to sell me something. they're using my line, my time, and making me pay for it! i want to pay for a game and enjoy it. ads take away from the enjoyment. the only exception i've found is the Psygnosis and Namco adverts for their other games. somehow they seem to fit, and they're for something i'd like to have. to give verisimilitude to the game background, it is almost required to have billboards, but they should be for fantasy companies and products of the game's own world, not real companies trying to sell me low-quality hamburgers. this is most especially true for any game set in some 'reality' other than our own.
.

[Dogg Thang]

Heh, as I seem to have started the whole McDonalds thing I really should point out that I just threw that out as an example. Nowhere has anywhere or anyone said that they'll be advertising in Pure - I was simply speculating (don't want to be the cause of any net rumours!).

But yeah, I agree with you Lance.

[lunar]

Its all hypothetical. I`m quite confident Sony wouldn`t want to spoil the wipeout brand with innapropriate sponsorship such as MacDonalds, or any other brand/product which would destroy the "suspension of disbelief" in the game. On the positive side,such a sponsorship deal would provide a rare opportunity to fire 1000 tonnes of TNT right up Ronald MacDonald`s golden arches, as in real life this kind of activity is actually frowned upon.

I believe the biggest problem with advertising in games, films or dvds is when you feel you are being forced to put up with marketing messages, but these do not add value to the product. For instance, quite a few kids DVDs I`ve seen start with previews of upcoming features, which cannot be skipped. Having purchased a legal DVD, the buyer has a right, surely, to choose what he or she wants to watch. People watching these films don`t necessarily want to see the previews, and their presence doesn`t add value - they don`t reduce the cost of the product in any way or enable it to exist. These “promotions” take away your freedom of choice, forcing you to spend time doing something you didn`t choose to do - in order to watch something you have paid for already. In marketing circles I believe this is technically termed as "taking the piss". Even five year olds can sense when it is happening.

Advertising in games is unnecessary, I think. If they`re good enough people will pay for them and pay for extra content, though that`s another issue in itself. Once you create an expectation that games may contain advertising you`ll eventually reach a point where it won`t be used to reduce the cost of games or provide extra content - it will be used to provide extra revenue and gamers will just have to put up with it. Game producers may claim that this sponsorship allows them to provide extra content, but how can we know that this is true? Knowing that we can`t challenge them, some publishers will be tempted to exploit consumers as much as they feel they can get away with.

The point is that its impossible to say how much should have been in the game to start with, if it wasn`t for the advertising. The same dilemma applies to charging for bonus content. Its entirely up to the publisher to decide what is bonus and what isn`t, and there will always be a temptation to put less in to start with, then charge for the rest. I think there can be a reasonable threshold at which the free stuff stops and charging begins, and if we don`t allow the possibility of that we could conceivably miss out. After all SL can`t pay their staff to go on making free downloadable wipeout content ad infinitum. Infact I think they`re being very generous with what they are offering - so there goes my anti-corporate cynicism..... at least in this case.

[TMoney]

When I bought Wipeout Pure in the US it had 'downloadable content' as one of it's features on the box.

If you , the developer/publisher/whatever, decide you want this to be a selling feature of the game - guess what? I should expect it as part of the 40w/tax I shelled out for it and that's it unless you mention right then and there otherwise.

If content needs to be supported by in-game ads - so be it. Under the following conditions :

- It doesn't detract from the "feel"/art direction of the game.
- It doesn't delay in any way the game experience.

If at any point I have to pay for Wipeout downloads after this whole time in gaming news websites it was said to be free and there were no mention of charges on the box, I'm going to be PISSED.

[Dogg Thang]

TMoney, you bring up an excellent point - what are we paying for? As you have rightly pointed out, the additional content has been a selling point of the game. So, although I would be more than willing to pay for expansions etc, the additional content in Pure should be considered to be part of the asking price. We have already paid for it in a sense.

This, in my opinion, also makes sense for Sony. Why? Because it allowed them to get the game out for launch.

The promise of the additional content was similar to the Early Bird Star Wars packs in a sense. That was way back when they started making Star Wars figures. They couldn't produce them fast enough, wouldn't have had them out for Christmas and so, instead, offered emtpy boxes with coupons for the figures when they were available.

Now, with Pure, we got so much more than empty boxes! We got a fantastic game. But part of the deal was that there would be more to come. So who pays for that additional content? By buying the game, we already have in a sense. It works for Sony with regards to cash flow too. This of course won't work for every game but it did make sense for Pure to get it out for launch.

To a large extent though, I feel the perception of extra content being 'free' is incorrect. We are paying for it one way or another. Otherwise, as Lunar pointed out, there would not be a dev team working on it.

[TMoney]

Agreed.

It isn't free.

We paid for it already when we bought the game.

[Chill]

Hey guys, Sony is smarter than this. They could get our attention by saying we pay for it or nothing will come. For example, what if everyone already has the game? :roll: Then what additional content would come? :wink: