I'm definitely opposed to the "knock the competition" aspect of it, but I'm not opposed to product placement in general.

I would definitely use the product in a positive light, but making the use of the product option - I don't want to, say, force gamers to buy Pepsi, but I would offer up Pepsi as a limited powerup, or as a fun item. Drinking a Pepsi might cause your character to break out in a dance, and force a short jingle/light show. I might have them as easter eggs, avoiding the direct advertising but offering a "reward" for players. If I can get a coupon tie-in (something I've looked into with another product), even better. Find the pepsi can, get a free pepsi! Stuff like that.

The key is keeping it optional. I don't want to feel like I'm having a product literally shoved down my throat.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Well, I wouldn't do it like your example because it's too intrusive, but if I had a friend who was, say, starting their own clothing line, I could name a clothing store in the game the same as their store and use their clothing designs.

I had a similar thought about up-and-coming artists - I wanted to have character renditions of the band/artist playing their actual music in virtual clubs, or have their songs on a jukebox you could play.

"Product placement" is misleading. A product can be a tangible good, an intangible service or benefit, or a company. Remember: games are products too. In this case, I prefer the term "co-branding" since that term effectively describes what happens when a product (game) promotes another product.

A rational decision regarding co-branding is a business decision and is ultimately dependent on a number of variables related to strategic branding, identity and the business environment, preferably well-forecasted for the product's (game's) lifecycle, which may vary according to the design of the game. For example, multiplayer games, whether massively so or not, have extended lifecycles while most single-player games remain profitable briefly. [Perhaps a year or less?]

Co-branding is an extensive subject which is often misdescribed primarily due to the widely held misconception that a brand is a logo or a product. A brand is neither. A brand is the general perception of a product; thus, branding is the act of manipulating the general perception of a product for whatever purpose. Therefore, co-branding is the act of manipulating the general perceptions of products for whatever purpose. Co-branding is often extremely rewarding despite what critics may think about advertising. [Imagine promotion of your game on a Coca-Cola bottle. To say the least, the Coca-Cola brand is favorable, and through association of your game with Coca-Cola, the general perception of your game is bettered.] In the big leagues, co-branding occurs not just with products in-game, but also with products pre-game and post-game. When the NVIDIA logo animation plays before the player is introduced to the main menu, that's co-branding. When the developer and publisher's logos are displayed, that's co-branding. Clearly, co-branding works and is beneficial.

The bottomline: co-branding is good. :)

However, there are creative issues which must be resolved before co-branding can even be considered.

Problem: Would my product benefit from co-branding?
Resolution: Yes, but only if certain conditions are met.

1. Identify a need for co-branding using existing organization and product marketing strategies, market research, and the current and forecasted business environments for the product's lifecycle.

2. If a need exists, identify products appropriate for the context and content of your game. Starbucks worked in the Shrek world due to the humor aspect. Taco Bell worked in Demolition Man due to the future aspect. Fantasy allows many co-branding opportunities. Some genres do not.

...

My fingers are running out of breath and my stomache is growling at me for not feeding it. I think I'll stop here. I hope the above helps this discussion... especially a little more towards the positive side.

I think, if product placement - or co-branding if we'd rather - is going to be in the game (and it's the kind of decision that, in my experience, gets handed down from higher up rather than one I get to make myself), then it definitely should be in the design from as early on as possible. Otherwise you do end up with something incredibly jarring because you were forced to throw in a giant billboard at the last minute. If you know you need to feature a particular brand within the game to a certain extent, you can design for that from the very beginning, build it into things etc such that it's prominent but not out of place.

As far as I am concerned in-game advertizement is okay if the game is free,

once somone is paying for somthing there is no longer an 'excuse' to use ads.

on the whole though, if the new trend in games starts to be branding *i think it just might* then I for one will not be happy, it is one of the main reasons that I dont watch TV.


Because, and correct me if i am wrong, making games is not about making Gajillions of dollars.

Quote:

Original post by EDI Because, and correct me if i am wrong, making games is not about making Gajillions of dollars.

It can be. Certainly, some people make games because they think of it as an art form and want to express their ideas, or because they like playing games and want to make games that they'd like to play, or for some other non-monetary reason that you might think of. But there's nothing wrong with making games to make money, any more than there's anything wrong with making anything else to make money.

And if none of the funding comes from putting a few billboards in your game environment, or texturing your health pickups to look like coke cans, then that money just has to come from somewhere else (for example, from the consumer).

I'm against intrusive advertising - I generally don't like adverts on TV, because they're intrusive - but I'm (personally) not going to care if you stick a few logos in your game textures. Just don't shove it in my face and force me to think consciously about it, and I couldn't really care less. (having said that, as per my previous post, if it doesn't fit the setting of the game at all, then putting it in at all will make me think about it, and so I might get annoyed at it)

John B

Argh, I hate that stuff. Hell, I think that the government should prohibit sale of naming rights for publically funded structures [or require they be named after a person, not a company] which is much more reasonable than game product placement.

Still. If the amount of income would allow me to make a game that otherwise wouldn't be made [either that game, or a future game] I'd probably go for it. I wouldn't expect my customers to like it though, and generally think that sort of propoganda is offensive.

Quote:

Original post by EDI Because, and correct me if i am wrong, making games is not about making Gajillions of dollars.

Like many ventures, the primary purpose for game development (read: product development) may not solely be to turn a profit; however, there are issues of time and money. Do you want to work in another industry on unrelated products to secure your livelihood? Or do you want to secure your livelihood while doing something you love?

"The man who does not work for the love of work but only for money is not likely to make money nor find much fun in life." -- Charles M. Schwab

I would as long as it doesn't hurts the experience or adds some. But how much would I tie it to the gameplay is highly dependant on the product and the game; I don't want to brainwash addicted gamers into thinking that coke is almost necesary for survival but if it's an adult sexual game I would probably promote condoms as such :p

Personally, I'd rather like to see a GTA-like game that involves blowing up McDonald's and Taco Bell, where you actually see the products, logos, and slogans of all these real companies. The bosses could be Bill Gates (of course), Warren Buffett (with his Geico gecko as a sidekick), and maybe the resurrected zombie of Dave Thomas (with his army of Hot 'n' Spicy Chicken Fillet minions and his Chocolate-Frosty-spewing shotgun). The final boss, of course, would be Ronald McDonald and his cult of hamburger-loving cretons.

Maybe I'm just a goof. [rolleyes]