ive put some thought in including product placement for MMORPGs as a means to cut the price down for the players per month. Suppose an online GTA game where you have to eat. The only resturaunts in town would be Subway and you were forced to eat sub sandwiches and chips to stay alive. If one million people played, thats a pretty decent market group. subway would pay X amount of dollars and that money would be taken off of the pay-per-month, wich would attract new players to the game, and subject them to the marketing. It'd also increase the odds of a player resubscribing each month to play. If the cost was only $4.99/mo and was a game that was just as fun/addicting as MMORPGs that cost $14.99/mo, then that $10 per player would influence alot of people.
Sure, some people would complain about the product placement, but if they're playing a game thats only $5 a month and they enjoy it, I doubt they could really say much about how its a bad thing.

Benjamin Heath: ROFL, now There's a game with ad's i'd pay for! XD

If nobody has suggested it before, then I am going to suggest a hollywoodism. You many not be able to avoid product placement in your game. There will be exceptions, realistically, like a coke billboard in a medieval rpg and other clear cut cases of working against each other, but there are a lot of smart producers, and in the game business as well, smart publishers, who in fact, know that product placement and detraction from the gameplay experience are not always going to bump heads.

And, publishers, always with an eye on revenue enhancement, and designers, more often than not with the exception of the few superdesigners celebrities out there, may simply have more clout than you in the argument against your opposition to product placement.

Usually, some fair and balanced bias is found, and if a reasonable product placement, in the time, place and circumstance relevant to the setting, activity and motif of the level in which the gamestate currently is running, you are going to have a hard time arguing against it. But, I was raised by a purist artist, rather famous for her artistic masterpieces and seminal innovation, so I am sensitive to where you purists are coming from. I personally think that it can be worked out so both design and commerce can be satisfied, and I think a lot of budding designers ought to glean from this suggestion of mine that this is how the business world often can work.

Adventuredesign

Garmichael, an advertising-supported (do not read: ads everywhere, spam, popups, etc.) MMOG would require no fee since the attraction to promoted items gained would be well-worth the advertisers' investments. There are many examples of products which are fairly profitable at zero expense to users.

I think there are a few key things to pulling this off with some integrity.

1- Ads should be unobtrusive and optional:
a. Most importanly- Do ads make sense within the creative context of the game?
b. Players have the right, if they so choose, to not view the adds if they payed for your product. Players who do not view adds, are not entitled to the direct benefits below.
c. In addition to "look and feel" in-game ads should be no more intrusive than real-world equivilants.

2- Ads must be benefitial to the player, either directly or indirectly.
a. Direct benefits: Players given in-game currency for exposure to ads, Lower purchase price / subscription fees, etc.
b. Indirect benefits: Funding of additional (FREE) content, etc.

3- Ads must not go against the "look and feel" of the game:
a. Maybe set up an "ad agency" responsible for working directly with the client's agency to develop ads which suit both parties.


I think that if a game were to follow these few things no one would really mind. Theres always going to be the extreme few that won't accept it under any condition, but making it optional will reduce the size of this group... Now you have to be carefull not to punish non-ad players, eg - if an add viewing monthly fee is $4.99, the non-add version shouldn't be $14.99, $9.99 might be reasonable. Even if the ads are pulling in $10.00 per player per month it should be spread a little more evenly... If the majority of players view adds it won't even make that much difference in cost to ad-viewing players. Say $6.99 with ads and $9.99 without. As with a lot of things it boils down to ethics and treating the players fairly.

Years ago, when I first got into the game industry, you might say that I had a very purist attitude. But of late, especially as I've looked at the towering requirements to actually create a AAA title, that attitude has really started to corrode.

There's a certain anti-corporate mentality I think is dangerous to have when you're entering the world of business. I once wrote Earnest Adams a semi-angry email that basically asked the question, "if you can't create what's in your heart and have to bend to commercial pressures, why bother?" He wrote me back explaining that we're in the same boat as TV series creators. Our products are part craft, part product, and that product has to sell or the ideas we have will never escape the paper we put them on.

Nothing makes that reality clearer than working on a business plan to try and make your game idea real. I'm going to be asking people for money, and I have to explain how I'm going to minimize risk and return their investment. I'm finding it to be a merciless, winnowing process when it comes to adjusting my attitude.

There's a fine balance between standing by your vision and never being able to realize it because you refuse to acknowledge the realities of the business world.

Quote:

Original post by FeralOfEclecticWizard Isn’t that example just asking to get the Coca-Cola people really mad at you ?

Hmmm... sounds like a job for a patch? ;)

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus 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.

Very good information, Adraeus. I think you can do something like this without making it an "in your face" proposition, which would actually work against the purpose.

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.

Would your friend give you money for this?

Quote:

Original post by EDI 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.

But we're unwilling to pay $200 for a game, which is increasingly what they should cost. We demand more story, which must be shown, not told, through extremely expensive cutscenes; and we demand higher fidelity graphical worlds which makes the cost exponentially expensive. The money's got to come from somewhere or you're just engaging in magical wishing.

For every rare, 3-man MMO breakout title you might be able to show me, I can come up with dozens upon dozens of examples of vaporware.

Quote:

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

Okay, you're corrected. :P (j/k)

You can make a game that you and a few hundred people might play, but that's not going to support your retirement nor any long-term vision you may have. For the love is nice when you're independently wealthy. Anybody here fall into that category?