PS3 joins in-game ad game

Sony introduces dynamically served shills to latest console; IGA Worldwide first to party with exclusive deal for EA games.

Dynamically served in-game ads may be old hat on the PC and Xbox 360, but Sony announced today its first partner in bringing the adaptable advertising technique to the PlayStation 3. Though Sony will be working with other partners, it has selected IGA Worldwide as its first intermediary for marketers and publishers.

IGA Worldwide in turn announced that it has reached an exclusive deal with Electronic Arts to manage dynamic in-game ad services for the publisher's PS3 lineup for the next two years. The deal encompasses not just the EA Sports label with its advertising-rich properties, but also racing franchises such as Need for Speed and Burnout.

Electronic Arts and IGA Worldwide have done dynamic ad business before, given that the firm managed controversial spots for Battlefield 2142 on the PC. The exclusivity portion of the deal is notable because IGA competitor Massive previously handled in-game ads for the Xbox 360 and PC editions of Need for Speed Carbon.

Dynamic in-game ads can be scheduled like TV ads, switched out, or updated on the fly, letting publishers reap additional income by promoting a wider array of products (including time-sensitive movie launches) over a longer period of time. To date, the PS3 has made use of static in-game ads, in which the spots are present on the game disc at the time of shipping and don't change after release.

[UPDATE]: A Sony representative confirmed for GameSpot that dynamically served ads have previously appeared on the PS3, specifically in the Japanese release Mainichi Issho.

70 Comments

  • division_9

    Posted Oct 5, 2008 7:29 am PT

    Whats with the hate towards ingame ads?. In most cases youre not forced to look at a in-game EA sports billboard to get to the next level.

  • Mattyrock

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 8:33 pm PT

    Seriously, what is the point of having ads in video games? It's not gonna work and it'll slow the game down.

    It's more a joke and a sign of the term "selling out" than it is trying to make profits.

  • 09231991

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 10:28 am PT

    Is this article really worth the time and effort to type up? Who cares, they are in-game ads and such, they don't do anything for the game.

  • Yuck_Too

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 6:18 am PT

    Target marketing. When done properly is not only of value to a company selling a product but the consumer of that product.

    Take in-game ads for example:

    Say you're playing CoD4 and somewhere in that game is a TV showing a previously unseen trailer for CoD5.

    That little easter egg would be properly done target marketing of in-game ads.

  • player_leo

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 4:23 am PT

    Isn't stuff like this what is supposed to pay for Home. And they are just now starting to get companies to sign on. At this rate Home will be delay again for lack of funds.

  • ninjasam

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 4:22 am PT

    Sometimes they add to the game experience, and sometimes the hurt it a little. It never destroys the game experience or anything. It may be a little disappointing to see some add stickers slapped on my Little Big Planet although I'll never really see them.

  • akiwak

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 1:55 am PT

    I believe that in game ads if done right can work. Movies and TV shows have been doing for a very long time and with the rising costs of development I'll put it with it if it is done right. I remember in Demolition Man with Sly Stallone that TACO BELL was the only restaurant to survive the franchise wars. I was laughing my ass off and after the movie I went to go get a taco.

  • MC_Raptor

    Posted Jun 5, 2008 12:53 am PT

    Kenji_Masamune haha...
    Goal replay in association with Mc Donalds, Because we lovin' it too.

  • Rubarack

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 10:07 pm PT

    Yes, I'm sure the spiralling costs of updating the player roster for Madden 09 just HAVE to be handled somehow. Stop being such a tool and admit that this is absolutely nothing to do with rising development costs and everything to do with greedy corporations wanting to screw us over as much as possible. None of the super expensive games you are arguing justify these deals feature advertising,it's all just cheap cash cows. If gamers reject in game ads the only consequence we'll see is fewer in game ads and lower payouts for shareholders. Games will always cost what publishers think they'll make the most money charging, advertising will have a negligible impact on that. (Some impact because people may rightly realise that a game crammed with ads is worth less than one that isn't, but then I don't particulalry care to get something that is worth less for less)

  • SonicTheMonkey

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 9:41 pm PT

    Grr evil advertisers...

  • froggut198

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 9:30 pm PT

    Kratos... not Kronos...
    haha

  • Ranteal

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 9:22 pm PT

    I cant wait for God of War III. Kronos (think thats right) sportin a AMP jersey or maybe the last level in MGS4 will be at Disneyland.

  • nsmnpc5000

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 9:12 pm PT

    Do you supposed anti in-game advertising hard asses feel the same away about your favorite websites or TV shows? Developers need to make money. Game costs have hardly risen over the last 15 years. The jump people complain about was from the standard $50 all the way up to $60. $10 more dollars per unit isn't enough to cover the cost of developing titles that cost as much as a medium budget Hollywood film. I'm talking about $30-$40 million for development costs isn't unheard of. Then you have $10 million and up on print and video advertising. Now, since the industry is smart enough to avoid passing all of the increased costs on to us, they need to make recoup those costs in some manner. So, either buck up and take your in-game ad medicine, or prepare to shell out $100+ for all of your favorite titles.

  • Dan2002sk8er

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:36 pm PT

    you guys don't get it it's like the billboards in Burnout Paradise are for a company. the new games will always have up to date stuff on it like always the newest model toyota on the billboards. I like it it make the worlds feel more real. how many of the old games like MLB 07 the show have the made up companies on the billboards it looks cheap. Now the argument for that is yes in game advertising would have made a game like Bioshock lame, the made up companies were great in it. but being a deal with EA, that means Madden can always have the ads that are actually in your home towns stadium that week to make the game way more realistic feeling.

  • GundamBlue

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:01 pm PT

    god in game ads suck..

  • ctg867

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 6:30 pm PT

    A game can only have ads if it falls under two situations:

    1) The game is either cheaper/free or have a noticeably increased amount of content.

    2) The ads fit the environment, don't stick out more then anything else in the environment, and aren't located all over the game. If they can't fit the environment, an increase on the other two conditions is needed.

    Otherwise I refuse to buy a game, and I will publicly boycott it for ripping off consumers with this ad abusing nonsense.

  • Pie_FOREVER

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 6:23 pm PT

    Considering PSN is a free service, there's no reason to complain about ad's. You're not paying for a subscription service like XBL, where you still get ad's regardless of subscription

  • Somebody89

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 6:20 pm PT

    @AngelsongCA

    Its probably because they hope the gamers are not smart enough to figure that out and then they will be able to keep their high prices on video games.

  • puppiemaster

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 5:40 pm PT

    The same people moaning about in game ads on the 360, are now not bothered by them being on the PS3.

    Funny that.

  • Hellfireknight

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 5:14 pm PT

    I think if the advertising fits the time period of the game it is fine because it will increase realism, but in games where it doesn't, it just makes it seem non-realistic..

  • kos1085

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 5:03 pm PT

    I have never bought a product because there was an ad in a game and I think it is a waste of money for companies who advertise in games.

  • Tandem_Toad

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 4:57 pm PT

    As long as it is tasteful, I have no problem with it. It only serves to supplement the huge costs of game development for longer production cycles and quality control.

  • deadarknight

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 4:08 pm PT

    if the AD fits the game i say go a head eg most sports and racing games but don't try to force an AD where it does not believe eg. finding an AD in God of War about McD's or something else like that

  • nsmnpc5000

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:59 pm PT

    In-game ads aren't used as a means to lower the end cost for the user. The corporations pay the developer/publisher to push their crap in the game. The developer/publisher use these funds to help offset the rising costs of game development. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong. You can't substitute the Network Television model with the In-game model for advertising. Maybe one day the use of ads in-game will help to lower the cost of games to the consumer, but first you have to be willing to accept them on the smaller scale. The revenue brought by in-game ads won't start to offset the cost to the consumer until the scale of advertising starts to rival that of network tv. I don't want that. I don't want them to ever be able to drive down game costs due to revenue brought in by in-game advertising. At that point you will have 2 or 3 minute ad breaks between levels of your favorite shooter or God-forbid actual Ad breaks during your favorite sports game or racer. Nobody wants that. Please, be happy that we only have to deal with billboards, the Old Spice Red Zone, and most of the interior of Rainbow Six Vegas 2. At least they didn't talk about Major League Gaming.

  • OfficialBed

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:56 pm PT

    meh...that's not too bad

  • Kenji_Masamune

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:55 pm PT

    Airstrike incoming!!! Brought to you buy verison wireless -_-

  • masterchief375

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:49 pm PT

    I dont mind seeing them as long as they dont come up at inapporpriate times or they're all plastered up sumwhere and distracting. So far i think UbiSoft has done this type of thing better than any other studio so far.

  • PSdual_wielder

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:48 pm PT

    Most likely they'll put the same kind of dynamic ad boards in HOME as well. Besides the games, where else would sony be able to put ads in?

  • zaphod_b

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:41 pm PT

    Advertising is abound in real-life racing and sports. I just hope this doesn't continue to bleed into genres where it doesn't fit, even if resigned to only the loading screens.

  • MooseBoys

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:39 pm PT

    I don't really mind, as long as they're context-sensitive. I don't want to be running through a dimly lit spaceship dodging alien attacks when I come across an ad for Lost.

  • lamprey263

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:24 pm PT

    well, as much as I hate the idea of how in game ads, I think in game ads could be really cool if done right

    I mean, say you make a world like GTA, and you see advertisements for AT&T wireless where you'd actually see AT&T wireless ads in real life, and so on, have some Starbucks and McDonalds establishments littered throughout the world, etc etc... and basically get enough advertisers to pay off the entire game so that when they release it they can give it to gamers for free

  • ShadoweaverCode

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:22 pm PT

    silentkill62696 - Yea I was JUST reading that a few minutes before you posted. Post is already editted.

    EDIT: I found GS original article about MS using ads, must've missed it.
    http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175614.html

    I still don't approve of them even though MS uses them. I'm with "olddog" on this, whatever I see advertised, I'm never buying in the future.

  • KnightsofRound

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:21 pm PT

    I refuse to purchase games with in-game advertisements. It would be like paying for a DVD that has commercials every 15 minutes.

  • insane956dv

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:19 pm PT

    cant wait to see next R6, sipping on PEPSI and having a Subway on a post mission break

  • AngelsongCA

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:18 pm PT

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't putting advertising in games make those games cheaper to buy for consumers?

    Take commercials on television for example. The sponsers pay for the content and airing costs. If the advertisers are paying to put their ads in video games, they are thus paying for a lot of the production costs from making said game.

    Considering this fact shouldn't games be cheaper for us to buy? If this is not the case it would be like us paying for pay-per-view movies on T.V. which also have commercials throughout the showing.

    That's idiotic is it not?

  • KayHangman

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:09 pm PT

    How do they manage that if you're not connected at game play time? Or is this only for "net connection required" games?

  • oldogg

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:08 pm PT

    im gonna buy less of whatever i see advertised.

  • ocdog45

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:07 pm PT

    don'tse why people cry about this. i don't even see the ads. they are not important so why should i care if they are in a game or not.

  • MFazio23

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 3:06 pm PT

    to everyone saying the games should cost less due to the added advertisements, you have to remember that games are getting more and more expensive to produce, and they're not going up in cost at the same rate. This is a way to allow bigger games to be created while not charging $100 per game.

  • kweeni

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:55 pm PT

    what?! i dont want any boring sleepy ads or commercials ot whatever while playing a game! thats what the tv is for...
    or maby they may add some but as long as they dont bother or interupt us then im cool

  • ShadoweaverCode

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:45 pm PT

    AngelCage - Yea, exactly. This whole in-game ads thing is getting ridiculous and you made a very good point, games should cost less if they are going to put ads in them.

  • shadystxxx

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:41 pm PT

    I dont mind advertising in games that fit, like racing games/sports games that have advertisment billboards all round the track/field, but i dont want ads in certain games, i dont want to be playing a sci-fi game set 1000's of years in the future with nike/coca-cola ads all over the place, dont these game companies make enough just through sales of there games, i hope they do not take it too far.

    Also wont these dynamic advertisments mean they will use up bandwidth, as surely my systems will automaticly download new ones, and with things like lag being quite annoying we dont need ads making it worse, although i imagine they will come in updates/patches etc.

    Aslong as they dont go too far i wont mind.
    Well the fact sony are charging plus having video ad's in the new Qore feature is already over stepping the mark, have one or the other, i dont want to pay to watch an episode of Qore only to watch 30sec ads every segment.

  • sfarrar76

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:39 pm PT

    I think that overall what escapes the game publishers is that the whole point of playing a game is to escape reality. I personally WOULD rather the developers create mock or dummy companies for in-game advertisements than use actual companies.

    There are already too few places where one can expect not to see advertisements in the world already. It's too late to keep games ad free, but we can at least limit or discourage it. What I think game publishers will find, too, is that like with TV ads and movie product placements, the more of it that exists the more gamers will tune it out as noise - there are already studies that indicate as much.

  • Stabby

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:38 pm PT

    I think more devs should make more historical and fantasy games in that case... you know, to spite advertisers.

  • AngelCage

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:37 pm PT

    So, now our games will leech our broadband connection to dinamically download new ads under the table, whithout tell us that that's happening... this is like some sort of malware if you ask me.

    i really are geting sick for all this ads crap. NOW the games should cost less, you no only have to see tons of ads, noy your system will alway download new ads, using your connection (connection wich you pay every month -You pay for it, not EA or IGA Worldwide-) to make money... they should pay you for the web traffic used to download the ads.

  • razgriz_101

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:16 pm PT

    im not tryin to be funny but ads are already in games how are dynamic ones going to make a diffrence?
    one thing sounds stupid but i think dynamic advertisement for car reletaded products or sponsors in aa game like Gran turismo or GRiD would work well as long as the advertisements link to the product (game)it can be an effective way of advertising.

    anyway it doesnt bother me also pushes prices down,cause dev costs go down,devs profit and possibly new IP's?

  • DeathStar17

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:11 pm PT

    Developers want their money, and thats about it. DLC and ads...hooray.

  • shadyelf

    Posted Jun 4, 2008 2:10 pm PT

    I don't mind ads in sports or racing games, but please leave the other genres alone.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!