News from the lovely world of the Games Industry.

[HVC]

Bad idea for the employees, good idea for the owner ($$$)

[viper37]

EA is looking at putting in-game ads in AAA games — 'We'll be very thoughtful as we move into that,' says CEO


EA, thoughtful.  Hmm.

EA CEO Andrew Wilson confirmed the company is considering putting ads in traditional AAA games — titles that players purchase up-front for around $70 apiece. In the Q&A part of EA's latest earnings call, Eric Sheridan from Goldman Sachs asked Wilson about dynamic ad insertion in traditional AAA games. Wilson said, "...Advertising has an opportunity to be a meaningful driver of growth for us." He then continued, "...we have teams internally in the company right now looking at how we do very thoughtful implementations inside of our game experiences."

In-game ads are a natural progression of advertising, especially as the gaming industry is expected to grow to $583 billion by 2030. Some players deem this a distraction, but others accept it as a fact of life as long as the ads are placed naturally and unobtrusively — not going loudly in your face, blocking in-game content, or interrupting your gameplay just to tell you that you should buy this product or subscribe to this service.

Unfortunately, EA has had a few instances of poor in-game ads. In 2020, the company placed full-screen in-game ads for the TV show The Boys in UFC 4. Its player base poorly received this placement, especially as it disrupted the game. This backlash led to EA removing the ad soon after.

In-game advertising is not new in the gaming industry. In fact, Adventureland, published in 1978, is the first recorded title to have ads baked in-game — although it was for promoting its sequel, Pirate Adventure. In 1983, Anheuser-Busch sponsored the arcade game Tapper, which featured a giant Budweiser logo right in the game and was designed for bars. Root Beer eventually replaced the Budweiser logo in 1984 so it could be placed in arcades where minors could play.

As the market for gaming titles increased in the 90s and 2000s, many companies wanted to tap into its potential — some games, like Zool and Push-Over, heavily featured products that sponsored their titles, like Chupa Chups and Quavers. In contrast, others were blatant advertisements, like Pepsi Man.

EA's Need for Speed: Underground 2 from 2004 is famously known for its in-game ads placed on billboards all over the open world. Some would argue that EA did that for realism, as the brands in the game featured real-world companies like Best Buy, Burger King, and Cingular.

But it was in 2006 when GameSpot confirmed that EA was going all-in with dynamic ads in its titles, with Need for Speed Carbon and Battlefield 2142 among the first games to try it. In 2008, Burnout Paradise, another popular EA title, featured political ads for then-Senator Barack Obama's 2008 US Presidential election bid.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter

More recently, SCS Software, the company behind the American Truck Simulator and Euro Truck Simulator 2 titles, sold ad space to trucking company Schneider National for hiring drivers. However, most of these in-game ads are placed on billboards by the side of the road, where you would naturally see them in real life.

In-game ads are an understandable side-effect of the free-to-play format. However, it leaves a bad taste, especially if the ads are served in a AAA game you've paid good money for upfront. While the development cost of AAA titles has skyrocketed, with titles like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Cyberpunk 2077, and Star Citizen costing hundreds of millions to make, their developers have also sold plenty of copies.

If EA adds dynamic in-game ads in its titles, let's hope the company sticks to its promise of "thoughtful implementation" and "community building beyond the bounds of our games." Otherwise, its community might rise in arms and force a change, just like how the uproar over the Helldivers 2 PSN account linking forced Sony to reconsider the requirement.

[Jacob]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

[crazy canuck]

There are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines.  Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.

[Jacob]

There are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines.  Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.

Yeah... though I think that stuff is already covered by the licensing? I don't know if EA could get away with showing - say - a Manchester City jersey with "United Airlines" or "Languish.org" on it instead of Etihad, and collect a fee from United or Languish for that.

[crazy canuck]

There are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines.  Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.

Yeah... though I think that stuff is already covered by the licensing? I don't know if EA could get away with showing - say - a Manchester City jersey with "United Airlines" or "Languish.org" on it instead of Etihad, and collect a fee from United or Languish for that.

Right, but my point was that advertising is already more intrusive in the real world and so it might be an unreasonable standard to say it should be less intrusive in a gaming world.

[Jacob]

Depends on what you believe constitutes "unreasonable." For my part, I was talking about it being "terrible," which is a subjective assessment (in this case, my subjective assessment).

In the end it comes down to execution and whether EA can implement additional advertising in a way that doesn't drive away customers in significant numbers. Neither "terrible" nor "unreasonable" really matters. It's whether they can get away with it in the marketplace.

[crazy canuck]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

[Josquius]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.

I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.

[Jacob]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

My bad. Should've used "e.g." not "i.e."

[crazy canuck]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.

I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.

What is the world of difference between f1 sponsorship and f1 or other Motorsport?

[crazy canuck]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

My bad. Should've used "e.g." not "i.e."

Either way you are holding an unreal world to a higher standard than what happens in the real world.

Problem is the people who make that unreal world need to make money in the real world.

[Josquius]

If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.

If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.

Jacob, this is the post I was responding to.  The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.

Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.

I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.

What is the world of difference between f1 sponsorship and f1 or other Motorsport?

I'm not a big fan of any variant of motorsport. But from the flashes in my mind I do recall F1 and the rally championship both being pretty similar in cars covered in ads- more on rally cars due to being more substantial vehicles.

My point is this.


Is hard to miss.

Whilst this



Is a lot easier to blend into the background.

[crazy canuck]

If the adds on the cars are what you are noticing during a race, your eyes are a lot better than mine

[Jacob]

Either way you are holding an unreal world to a higher standard than what happens in the real world.

I don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Problem is the people who make that unreal world need to make money in the real world.

I am well aware