Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Spot On: Microsoft's in-game ad master plan

General manager of Xbox new media and franchise development explores the merger of industries in Game Advertising Summit keynote.

SAN FRANCISCO--While the Game Developers Conference has proven a popular venue to examine various aspects of the gaming industry for years, there are emerging trends and topics that could support more robust discussion than is afforded by the one or two GDC sessions they are able to carve out. To give those topics their due, GDC organizers The CMP Game Group established the Focus On series--specialized summits designed to bring the key players in a number of emerging trends together to provide a deeper look at issues that will affect the industry in years to come.

The Focus On series begins today with the Game Advertising Summit. And to deliver the keynote address, the GDC turned to Kevin Browne, Microsoft's general manager of Xbox new media and franchise development. Browne is working to facilitate the flow of advertising to the Xbox platforms, but he also heads the effort to get Microsoft properties such as Halo and Viva Pinata licensed out to become movies, TV shows, and the like.

Brown opened his GDC Focus On keynote presentation with a disclaimer for the audience, journalists in particular: "I will make a bunch of statements that are rhetorical questions that I hope we can deal with seriously as an industry," Browne cautioned. "Please don't write that Kevin Browne said to drop your prices so we can get a bigger audience, because I'm not saying that. I'm asking a question--a valid question--about whether we can attract 10s of millions of gamers to an advertising business when we charge $60."

For most of the next 50 minutes, Browne talked about what "needs" to happen and what is "essential" for in-game advertising to reach its potential. But when Browne hit the part of his presentation he feared would be misreported, he was quick to note he didn't have all the answers to his questions. To start, he laid out some perspective, pointing out that the worldwide gaming industry right now is roughly $25 billion a year, while advertising, as an industry, spends some $378 billion a year to convey branding and marketing messages to consumers--with media-buying expenditures expected to grow six to eight percent every year, near-term.

"When you think about it, a fairly small shift in advertiser behavior could replace all the revenue that we generate today," Browne said. "We could be a totally ad-funded business if we could figure out how to do that. We could double the size of our industry by 2010 by finding the right mix."

Browne also saw some other possibilities for taking advantage of the advertising industry, in ways that could potentially revolutionize the game biz. He wondered if publishers should look at advertising as the extra $1-per-unit that could help a borderline title reach profitability, or something more.

"Could you as a publisher think about your business and say 'I'm going to price so that I can attract 10 times the customers I have today and be able to make it up on ads,'" Browne asked.

He also wondered if advertising could help create more flexible and fluid release windows for games. Right now, movies get a theatrical run, pay-cable TV, DVD release, and home broadcasting. Increased revenue from in-game advertising might be able keep publishers from feeling like they have to get all their revenues in the first six weeks of sale and make staggered releases in different windows more feasible for publishers.

That's what Browne thinks might happen. But he also discussed plenty of things he said needed to happen. To describe those, he broke the interested parties into three groups: gamers, advertisers/ad agencies, and developers/publishers.

"For us to make any progress at all, the things that you do have to provide benefits for all three," Browne said.

For gamers, the first rule is to "do no harm," Browne said. He emphasized that relevant advertising and providing bonuses like sponsored tournaments and original content were helpful in winning them over, and said that consumers these days are actually quite receptive to advertising; they just want to dictate how they get it and in what form.

"Think about this consumer as somebody not to vomit all over with messages," Browne said, "but rather to engage in a discussion."

Appealing to advertisers and ad agencies requires a different tack. Browne stressed the need for accountability and devising methodologies for tracking not just whether ads are being seen, but who they're being seen by. Advertisers need assurances that they are hitting their target market.

For the developers and publishers, Browne said they want advertising relevant to the game just like their consumers. Ads have to provide them with revenue to offset their development costs, but Browne brought up ease of implementation as a key issue facing the in-game ad sector.

In the rhetorical part of his presentation, Browne proposed a scenario where car manufacturer Volvo was debuting a new vehicle and wanted to run an ad campaign in all the big new games over a six-month period surrounding the car's release.

"If you were Volvo and you were trying to get into 30 or 40 games over a six-month period today, you'd very likely be doing at least 20 unique deals and doing 30 separate projects with 30 separate game teams," Browne said. "That's impossible. Nobody's going to do that."

Browne said it was necessary to set standards for signs, video, audio, 3D objects, and file formats to be used across multiple games and a variety of platforms. He advocated developing tools that would put the burden of the work on the ad agencies. Not only are they more used to handling the entire creative process end-to-end when working in other media, but it would also resolve other significant issues. For example, with ad agencies handling the grunt work, there wouldn't be different artists on each development team trying to create 3D models of the car while juggling their regular duties on already-tight schedules.

While Browne is convinced of what needs to happen for the in-game ad market to realize its potential, he was quick to mention some additional unresolved issues. For example, he wasn't sure how willing developers would be to set aside memory for things like interactive ads, or how amenable they'd be to letting advertisers drop content directly into their games.

Then, there was "the big question of how we work together as platform owners to make sure that we can aggregate an audience that's really big and interesting for advertisers." Browne said neither Sony nor Microsoft would be able to single-handedly take the in-game advertising industry to the $700 million mark it's projected to reach by 2010.

That sort of willingness of competitors to work with each other is the big unknown, according to Browne. He discussed Microsoft's recent acquisition of in-game ad serving firm Massive as an example, and, in closing his keynote, said the company was committed to remaining platform-agnostic going forward. Massive already serves ads for Sony Online Entertainment titles PlanetSide and The Matrix Online.

Check back soon for more coverage from the Game Advertising Summit. The next GDC Focus On event is the Game Outsourcing Summit, scheduled to be held August 14 in LA.

160 Comments

  • Brashen

    Posted Jun 20, 2006 5:33 pm GMT

    I was watching an action movie the other night. I was lucky enough to catch a tampon commercial in the middle of it. Yeah, that was immersive. Right from watching people get blown up to listening to some women complain about their monthly visitor. Awesome mood tactic.

    It goes like this people...

    They start out slowly, keeping ads appropriate to the game content. While they're doing this they're gathering more direct market data. As they get a better feel for the different groups they start inserting a few more ads that are simply group specific. Oh well, by the time this happens people are already accepting the idea and getting used to it. It pervades the rest of their lives anyway, why should gaming be any different? Some will grumble... until they get tired of it and conform. My apologies, I could have used a much more apt term than 'people' to describe these. I think 'sheeple' would have been a much better choice. Hope that helps to clear up my meaning.

    And so the ad company plan continues to roll forward.

    Some of the statements I've read in this forum truly frighten me. The amount of people who will blindly follow wherever they are led appears staggering. Is this a surprise to me though? Hmmm, I guess not.

    Terry Goodkind was right on the money when he created the "Wizards First Rule". People are stupid.

    It would be interesting to know how old some of these posters are.

  • blackwing837

    Posted Jun 19, 2006 5:37 am GMT

    Having real world advertising in a racing game makes sense... ( ie, billboards etc) if they have an ad for Pepsi or Ipod in an RPG it would ruin the impact of the game I think.

  • LakeFPownsu

    Posted Jun 16, 2006 10:04 pm GMT

    You guys honestly think it will lower the cost? Developers want to make as much money as they can, so if they can add ads AND sell the game for $60, as long as the ads don't distract, don't you think they'd want to keep the price at $60, because it's been proven that gamers will buy 60 dollar games!?

  • buckybuckster

    Posted Jun 16, 2006 11:31 am GMT

    Great point nirvana_2, ads in games have NEVER resulted in lower costs to the consumer, only higher profits to the manufacturer.

  • jobeesh

    Posted Jun 15, 2006 11:38 pm GMT

    I take that back, think about how putting ads into games will effect the decisions on what games are made. Great games like Oblivion might never be made because ads can't be put into it because of it's genre.

  • jobeesh

    Posted Jun 15, 2006 11:33 pm GMT

    this is going to be a difficult balance for developers to strike it seems. I for one do not want to be covered in advertising vomit after dropping a siginificant amount of money on a game. On the other hand, if it is relevant and the game doesn't appear to be a commercial I would love to see the price of games come down to get a greater market appeal.

  • nirvana_2

    Posted Jun 15, 2006 9:56 pm GMT

    This is pandora's box... if the industry greenlights this, then advertisement will be here to stay. And DON'T THINK THAT GAMES WILL B CHEAPER, in fact, it will cost the same, but will want you to ACTUALLY SPEND MORE by making you buy those products advertised. For example, I don't remember seeing SWAT 4 selling for less, even though it already had ads. Don't fall for this... if we can have our games ad-free as we always have, then there's no need to change. There's no direct benefit for us users. All the benefits are between the game publishers and the ad companies. The only way that I could support game advertising would b if it was given for free, but with the choice of buying the same game with no ads at regular price. This model has already been used in some freeware utilities. That way both users and companies win. But i don't see it happening. Man, I don't like the state of my beloved game industry these days!!!! :-(

  • saragat

    Posted Jun 14, 2006 1:50 pm GMT

    The way of the future is to have games released for free (Or about $5) and have is supported by advertisements and online micro-transactions.

  • BigGhostrider

    Posted Jun 14, 2006 9:51 am GMT

    I like how in Rainbow Six Lockdown there were different posters in levels advertising movies and stuff in Xbox Live games. Every so often the posters would have something else on them. That just makes the game feel more realistic and I have no problem with in-game ads. As long as it's not distracting.

  • 1blackhearted1

    Posted Jun 14, 2006 8:11 am GMT

    Just what we need on the disc, game space used by ad space

  • egt90

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 11:48 pm GMT

    I, for one, will never purchase a game with advertising in it, nor a console who's owner supports it. Looks like I'll be getting the Wii.

    Simply because a company makes more money does not mean that the game will be better, nor will it be cheaper. They won't give you something that's better (In this case lower prices) unless it benefits them financially. If the gamers were to unite in, let's say a... worldwide boycott of $60 games, it would become financially beneficial for these companies to charge $50 a game.

    There has to be a line: advertising has gotten out hand in our society--buses, websites, roads, magazines, television, and now videogames. I can't say it's a surprise, but I don't have to support it, either.

    Go indie. Support $20 games built on creativity and fun, made by the common man instead of a mindless drone.

  • gertish

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 11:25 pm GMT

    That was a lot of words. And I can't really read articles about games that are longer than 1 paragraph.

  • Bahamut50

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 6:33 pm GMT

    oh and what man-whatever its name is said, is not really wrong. you may have job satisfaction, but it will ALWAYS come down to the money. your money level could be real low, but its always about money. and volunteer work is also the same, because it helps you in your resumes and all that to get more high paying jobs

  • Bahamut50

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 6:29 pm GMT

    i think having ads to lower prices would be smart, and it would be pretty damn funny for some games. wow pepsi machines, thats just great.

  • shirandominion

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 3:55 pm GMT

    everyone whos talking about ads lowering the prices of games is missing the point. the people who've pointed out that the price won't be lowered as long as games can be sold at $60-they're right. the benefit the ads have is for the developers, and it may help stem price inflation in the future. its simply an added source of funding that developers can use towards making games even better. more money increases the potential for better quality. i'm not quite sure how i feel about it-i could see it in, say, something like GTA set in a recognizable world, but not in halo (and i think people'll find they'll stay out of games like that) its certainly not something people should dismiss so readily, and it seems too early to make a good call.

  • MusashiFilms

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 2:14 pm GMT

    For every inch you give marketers in the utopian ideal that they'll use that inch wisely, you'll inevitably find that they take a yard and make a stick out of it and proceed to smash you over the head and face with it.

    Many of you are young and saturated, MTV-style marketing is so infused in your life you can't see straight anymore. Have a spine and stand up for your ideals: you have the power. It's your wallet and as long as you willingly give over a few dollars here and there, the marketers will continue seeing you as profit points and nothing else.

    How much cheaper did Fight Night Round 3 become after Burger King bought all that ad space? Exactly.

  • warpuke

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 10:34 am GMT

    ANYONE who actually thinks that this is going to make it more affordable to play games is a retard. I'm sorry. They are not going to pass the money onto development costs, hell no. It will go into their pockets. The rationale is simple, the public is used to paying between $40-$60 depending on platform and the title. HOW can you honestly think that they are going to give you $5 off for the adverts?

  • kothos

    Posted Jun 13, 2006 9:28 am GMT

    Sure, who really wants to see ads in their games... not me thats for sure! If done right it might be ok but it would all have to be subliminal. I dont wanna be playing an RPG or a FPS and run around the coner seeing billboards for Mountain Dew or an enemy wearing a T-Shirt that says "Buy Kenmore Refrigerators".

    I pay money for these games and want an enjoyable experience. There are already too many ads on TV and now blasted ads on the internet. I'm already totally bombarded with ads wherever I go, and it is smothering me. Leave the ads out of the games people.... it will just ruin the experience.

  • TooDamnRaw

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 9:26 pm GMT

    If ads are going to start becoming standard in games, than gaming prices should be droped dramatically. High gaming prices AND in-game advertising shouldn't be part of the games I pay for. It's one or the other.

    Another thing I don't get is how can you market and advertise to people who already support and play video games? I'm sure that point has already been made, but I just wanna know how or even why this might make game developers more money than they already make?

  • winnazdaluza

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 2:45 pm GMT

    yup between loading points will be like a commercial break !!!

  • bgres077

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 1:53 pm GMT

    Get ready to get pwned by PS3 gates

  • alpha_company

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 12:22 pm GMT

    woohoo...money money money!

  • joeamis

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 11:12 am GMT

    What happens when a developer/publisher can release crappy games but actually make a great profit off them from advertising? WE WILL SEE MORE CRAPPY GAMES...!

  • sasuke55

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 9:59 am GMT

    GOOD because it can add a nice touch to WWE 2007 or NBA live or Madden. Or if you ride by a Mcdonalds in GTA or Saints Row.

    Bad because I dont' want to have to watch a commercial for Honda suv like I now do before I look a a video for a game.

    Plus it won't bring down cost for a game. The companies will keep the money and pay their CEO's more

  • Sweendrix

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 6:42 am GMT

    I personally don't care if advertising becomes in game...I just offer these simple rules to retain my business.

    1. Advertising should not affect gameplay...(slowdown, frame drops...etc.)
    2. Advertising should boost realism.
    3. Advertising should be passive. (Never a focal point)

    I don't mind if my character is wearing Addidas sneakers or a Nike sweatshirt. To me...that add's realism and if a company wants to brand thier product through a game in this manner I have no problem with that. I would like to see creative advertising methods in games. Maybe...unlockable minigames which allow players to "earn" discounts by scoring a certain number of points. This would be a good way to implement advertising in games...especially if the mini games were fun and challenging. Think about it...obtaining a certain score to get 15% off of your purchase next time you shop at such and such a place might not be that bad. The main thing here is that advertisers don't become overzealous...if a game reaks of promotions and this leads to sub-par gameplay...then they won't advertise to anyone at all because gamers will not purchase the game.

  • paradyme777

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 6:32 am GMT

    In-game adds. So far from what I've seen with the in-game screen shots it really isn't that noticeable. I'm sure games like Halo 3 and the like won't have those types of ad's in them but some other lower profile titles might.

  • Sweendrix

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 6:12 am GMT

    To those of you saying that the Xbox 360 is losing momentum I want you to think about this.

    From the Fine Editors at Gamespot~

    "The creative killing of 47 was enough to top the nostalgic gameplay of New Super Mario Bros. for the DS, which fell down to the number two slot after two weeks at number one. Hitman wasn't content with just number one--the PlayStation 2 version earned its dough at number seven." ` (gamespot)

    Now...for those of you saying that the Xbox 360 is losing momentum...I want you to tell me how the Xbox 360 version (at at the # 1 spot) outsold the PS2 version (#7 spot) when there are roughtly 4-5 million xbox 360's out there and roughly 100 million playstation 2 systems out there.

  • nathanfist

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 4:53 am GMT

    I'd only like it if it advertised new games and release dates.

  • darkbuster_exe

    Posted Jun 12, 2006 12:37 am GMT

    I actually wouldn't mind, if it's done properly. For example: In Sonic Adventure 2, you pass all sorts of fake bill boards as you speed through all of the city based levels. Would you really be that bothered if that "Chaos Soda" poster was replaced with a Coca Cola one? Infact, the game DID have one ad that went over most people's head; The shoes that he wears for that game, are Soaps, which are used for grinding. It was apart of a tie in deal, & no one complained about it. Not only that, but he gained a cool new ability that easily caught on, out of it.

    Though in reality, we know advertisers want FAR more attention than that, & eventually, developers will sell out to appeal to them.

  • zakkss

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 9:39 pm GMT

    Good in-game ads will take the form of product placements much like in James Bond movies or I Robot.

    For example Instead of a generic health-pack or painkillers you'd get a branded one. The art used for the item and logo would match the look and feel of the rest of the game, say retro if it's a WW2 shooter or high-tech if it's in a sci-fi setting.

    Even billboard-type advertising can be done right. For example you already have brands plastered onto the walls in Day of Defeat: Source. Those decals add to the feel of the game taking place during WW2 and cool easily be real ads if the style was right for the time.

    Ads done right will add to the immersion of a game, not detract from it.

  • rbarahona

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 5:47 pm GMT

    It's sure about making money. Because of the high cost inherent to making games, companies will try to get new "sponsors" in order to keep the price down for the user.

    This could be a good issue, because that way, we as consumers can get the software at a reasonable price and the companies won't lose money.

  • landau492

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 5:40 pm GMT

    im going to puke

  • chrisdojo

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 5:05 pm GMT

    aka..... m$'s master plan:

    make money.

  • Scott091

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 5:01 pm GMT

    Lawl @ people saying it won't make cheaper games...If they get five bucks per game they sell from a company wishing to advertise for them then they could lower the price for 10 bucks and increase sales by say 25% or so...making profit overall go up.

    Lowering prices can make profit go up because you might sell more product. Its simple supply and demand.

  • rarson

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 4:10 pm GMT

    CheetahL: CommanderLYNX was not arguing that advertising "makes a difference." Perhaps you need to re-read his post.

    "And no, games are not cheaper when you factor in inflation. Games used to come on expensive carts, now they come on optical disks that only cost a couple cents to manufacture."

    I'm willing to bet you never bought any Atari 2600, 7800, or NES games brand new, huh? http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ The base NES unit which retailed for $199 in 1985 would cost over $350, more than I've ever paid for any Nintendo console. Moreover, the $30 games would now fetch over $50. Sure, there are more expensive games now, but factor in that games these days can easily rack up development costs of over a million dollars, and you'll see that the equivalent in 1985 would be MORE THAN 5 TIMES THAT. I don't think there was a company out there that would've risked 5 million on a game back then.

    A majority of the cost of cartridge development was Nintendo's licensing fee. Developers still pay licensing fees but competition has decreased that cost dramatically. Don't forget that in Japan, Nintendo also had the Famicom disk drive, and these used cheap media of the time as well, but did they cost any less? No. The expensive silicon you refer to was mostly the carts produced by SNK with their $100+ (sometimes close to $1000) Neo Geo games. The silicon used in NES cartridges was limited to tiny amounts of storage that would be cost-effective (besides, they didn't need the space back then). It was only in the N64 days when silicon requirements began pumping the cost up to the point that cds would be cheaper to use.

    Besides, if you think discs are cheap to make, wait till you see the cost of manufacturing BD-ROMs!

  • enoslives7

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 1:49 pm GMT

    looks like microsoft is getting desperate.....Their sales figures are in the toilet.........."Hello bargain bin"

  • CheetahL

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 12:17 pm GMT

    CommanderLYNX:
    How does selling advertising for a living make a difference in the world other than pissing people off? This is nothing but a money grab, don't kid yourself.

    Paulschem:
    Take-Two lost money because of the Hot Coffe fiasco and the fact that they have terrible management, not because of increasing game costs. If you can sell 20 million copies of a game and still loose money, something is seriously wrong with your management.

    And no, games are not cheaper when you factor in inflation. Games used to come on expensive carts, now they come on optical disks that only cost a couple cents to manufacture.

    I say it again, why are people supporting this? You don't actually believe they would lower prices because of ads? Games already have ads NOW, and they aren't any cheaper.

  • Paulschem

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 11:02 am GMT

    When PS1 first came out new games were $50. Now new games cost $60 about 10 years later. If you figure for inflation, games are cheaper now than they were a decade ago. Add to the fact that games are much more complicated and need many more people to develop, making them much much more expensive to make. There are many games right now that are losing money. Take-Two just announced a Q2 loss of $50.4 million. Unless the only games you want to play are Halo and GTA, people are either going to have to pay much more for games, or put up with ads.

  • CommanderLYNX

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 10:49 am GMT

    Manatassi said:

    Yes its all about making money, so is everything else in life. Why do you go to work?

    - Some people go to work to make a difference; of course, as far as I can gather from the tone of your bold statement above, neither job satisfaction nor actually 'making the difference' have ever occured to you. Capitalism as its worst.

  • shasam712

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 10:11 am GMT

    This sounds like it could be cool. For a start, it could lower game prices which would make the 360 alot more attractive to me. Plus, for games set in the real world it would give them that edge that just makes you think that this could be a real place in the world.

    As for developers setting aside time and memory to do this, I think they would be will to get their hands on some cold, hard cash. Plus, if you are talking about the PS3 and its blue-ray discs, they can store a huge amount anyway, so whats a few volvo badges here and there going to do.

  • ExcAREentric

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 10:03 am GMT

    Yay! Capitalism!

  • AcidJiles

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 3:31 am GMT

    NO NO NO. I hate advertising and am fine to pay for games that dont have any ads. hate ads trying to get into everything I do. anyways they are completely fail with me as I dont take notice of crap

  • MadonnaProject

    Posted Jun 11, 2006 1:57 am GMT

    If microsoft plays their cards right and this works then it could result in much lower LIVE costs and LIVE could even be free at one point. Besides who cares, i seldom do online gaming and am not on live right now. maybe sometime in the future, but i like playing games other than one sole halo2 on live....

  • Rekunta

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 11:08 pm GMT

    I can't believe the number of you who are alright with this...

    I pay my money for this product, I should NOT have to sit there and watch some lame ads. This is freaking UNBELIEVABLE. I will boycott any game that has ads in it, as I have with Fight Night 3.

    It's all about the green. If this becomes a major issue, I will abandon MS and any other company that can't stand for us to be alive for a few minutes without having products crammed into our faces. This is dangerous territory, PLEASE think this over and tell these companies that you WILL NOT stand for this garbage.

    The only way I would approve is if they had an option to view the ads seperately from the game in the options menu or so....

    Otherwise, ads.....get lost!!

  • CheetahL

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 10:14 pm GMT

    I'm gonna vote with my wallet by not supporting games with ads. Also, I think there should be a mandatory 1 point deduction from a game's review score if it has ads, to deter this crap. Well, at least that's what I would do, I know a major review site wouldn't have the balls to do that.

    I play games to escape reality, not to be reminded of it. I'm quite surprised at how many staus-quoters we have here supporting this. Lame.

  • glitchgeeman

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 9:44 pm GMT

    I don't want ads in my games. I play games to ESCAPE reality, not meet up with it again.

  • rarson

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 9:17 pm GMT

    Of COURSE prices aren't going to go DOWN, there's something called INFLATION at work. You guys are like all the people whining about paying $3/gal for gas. Well guess what? THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD BE. Those people should just be happy we're not paying £2/L (like they are in Europe) for gas just as you guys should be happy that you have a choice not to pay $70 for a game. Don't like ads in games? FINE, DON'T BUY THEM. Then they'll go away.

    And Sony fanboys complaining about MS? That's rich! Sony will kill the PS3 with the BD format. Not only are the drives expensive as hell but so are the discs! At least HD-DVD's can be pressed with current-generation DVD hardware! Not to mention the sub-$600 models whose HDTV features will become useless in two years...

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 7:50 pm GMT

    ok, well with this news... im officially selling my stupid xbox tomorrow and all my games. have fun making money, M$

  • RoboWizard

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 6:59 pm GMT

    Like most everything else, it all depends on the circumstance for me. For example, as others have mentioned, I don't mind playing a game set in 2004 LA and buying a cool, refreshing Coca-Cola from a vending machine (I wouldn't even mind if it fully regenerated my health bar, followed by a snappy one-liner from my avatar akin to "WOW! THAT WAS AWESOME!!!"). What I would mind, however, is if I had to sit through a commercial for that Coke before I saw the opening cinematic for Halo 3. In-game advertising where it makes sense, but nothing says "we care more about making a few extra bucks than creating a quality, artistic piece of entertainment software" like a Hot Topic in Devil May Cry IV.

  • i_love_my_ds

    Posted Jun 10, 2006 6:09 pm GMT

    if they don't distract from the experience, I'm all for it.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!