EA signs with two in-game ad firms

By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpotPosted Aug 31, 2006 11:46 am PT

Publisher will sell space in upcoming games; Need for Speed Carbon and Battlefield 2142 to be company's first games featuring dynamic ads.

In-game advertising firms have been signing publishers to their services for years, but there has always been one notable holdout: the world's largest third-party publisher, Electronic Arts. Today EA announced its initial steps into the world of dynamically served in-game ads, and those steps will come with the help of two competing ad services, IGA Worldwide and Microsoft-owned Massive Inc.

For IGA World Wide, EA has committed to deliver a portfolio of no fewer than three games across "select EA franchises" that incorporate the company's in-game ad technology. The first game announced as part of the deal is the PC first-person shooter Battlefield 2142, which is set for release later this year.

On the Massive side, EA will tap the firm to provide dynamic in-game advertising for up to four of its titles on PC and Xbox 360, starting with Need for Speed Carbon. Previous installments of the game have featured static advertising (where the game ships with the ad placed in a part of the game and never changes), but this will be the first time the publisher can switch out and update ads on the fly to help promote more time-sensitive products or campaigns.

Dynamically served ads can come in all sizes and formats, from billboards and movie clips to radio jingles and in-game objects. Financial terms were not disclosed for either agreement, nor were any potential advertisers identified.

184 Comments

  • Sociologist

    Posted Nov 6, 2006 12:30 am PT

    Screw EA! I won't spend another penny on any of their products, and just sold my copy of BF2142 on Ebay, (so that EA won't get a cut, lol). Fight the power.

  • MichaelSullivan

    Posted Oct 27, 2006 10:29 am PT

    EA GAMES, INCORPORATED - I'd just like to say that you have a let down. A big advertising campaign on in your games while playing? This is something out of a horror film! Not only do we pay you for the game, you enslave us with adware whilst playing games? Big let down I say, I shall not support you any more by paying for your ad-infested games.

  • aloysius256

    Posted Oct 25, 2006 3:52 pm PT

    ABSOLUTELY ABHORRENT STRATEGY. This has ruined my game experience. I vowed to give EA one more chance to prove themselves after the initial folly of BFMEII. This ensures I will no longer purchase ANY EA games. Ever.

  • darkpresence

    Posted Oct 23, 2006 10:53 pm PT

    stan, i think alot of people would agree realistic advertising is permissible if the "ad" is a part of the static environment e.g. coke or pepsi vending machine model, a restuarant like Ihop, or mcdonalds etc in an urban environement, or a BIllboard while racing in Nascar. as long as its part of the in game environement, a rendered in game model with texturemap and is static. i wouldnt mind, your correct, it would be a bit more realistic. But i wouldnt have to worry about the game being overly intrusive by relaying information abut me looking at the game or clicking it to see a can comes out. 2 things this promotes, 1, security flaws!, 2 it reduces the performance of the computer by tying up the cpu and memory and internet even for a brieft second or 2, its taking and siphoning my performance int he game. its not even an option to have dynamic, changeable intrusive objects in my game and on top of that relayng information on my viewing habits. who the hell they thinkt hey are? its none of their business what i look at! to me its intrusion of my privacy at its very core! and its not permissible in any form.

  • darkpresence

    Posted Oct 23, 2006 10:47 pm PT

    what is to keep EA from slaugthtering your pc?? ITs proven that the game BF2142 cant run if u delete the spyware program that runs the data transfer with the IGA. there is obvioulsyt some way to block it from running, and i thank god for those intelligent deviants lol who play with code and find loopholes daily to make my world a better place lol.

    but this is truly tragic lol. its almost comical. I think i speak for alot of people i wont buy anything from EA. as far as im concerend im focusing my money into more "deserving" companies.

  • darkpresence

    Posted Oct 23, 2006 10:40 pm PT

    few people sam03is?? have u taken a look on the net? the firestorm this has ccreated? I think its more than a few people. I also think a people in general wouldnt mind IGA (in game ads) if the savings were passed onto the customer in the formof reduced price tag, enhanced content, make those booster packs free.
    I think EA has truly dropped the ball. and these "few" people numbers in the thousands if not 10's of thousands. so i think its more than a few people sam03is. your correct from a businessstandpoint its beneficial to them, but they are getting bribed! and those "millions" of dollars in ad revenue isnt gonna look likemuch when u add up the number of $50 x10-20,000 customers not buying your game due to the blatant slap in the face use of spyware and ADS in the game. getting screwed without getting a reach around. its stupid, and EA is gonna suffer for it.

    i for one will be responding with my wallet. like the thousands out there.

    and bend over and take it? please wake up and smell the real world. america or whatever country we as customers have rights, and therefore we have the "freedom" to speak with out minds and our wallets. EA exists because of us! and they will only continue because of us. its not us who will change, it will be EA who will change or will have truly hard times over the next year or so until they realize they cant do things like this.

  • RPG_Ash

    Posted Oct 23, 2006 10:04 am PT


    Man this sucks big time.

    There are also other people who think the same on:

    Broadband Reports.com Security Forum

    "Battlefield 2142 ships with spyware? Say it ain't so"

  • sam03is_

    Posted Oct 21, 2006 7:01 am PT

    PHH who am i kidding....... WE F***ING ROCK!!!!!! SUCK IT CANADA!!!! ;P

  • sam03is_

    Posted Oct 21, 2006 6:53 am PT

    im not so much saying "bend over and take it" as much as im saying "why have a sook about something that has already happened and is more than likely going to keep happening?" After all, its not all that likely that EA is going to give up a contract worth millions just because a few people are crying about it.
    You have a good point though. i would much preffere to have a major company like EA with "spyware" (for lack of a better word) in my computer than some retard with the sole purpose of slaughtering my PC.

    B.T.W. Not Canadian, Australian......... im personaly not sure which is worse......

  • Viper24235

    Posted Oct 19, 2006 6:19 pm PT

    .
    .

    >Now EA have stated that they do not give out ANY personal or private >information about the person playing there games. To me, this means that >changing this rule would put EA and the other firms in jeopardy of there >contract and would be sued for millions buy all teh pissed off gamers around >who feel they have been violated.

    >The sooner we accept the future for what it is going to be, the easier it will be >on all of us.

    Yeah that's it, becuase EA can misplace private data just as easily as anyone else. Just becuase you never see vampires and have an anti vampire rock doesn't mean it's doing anything. As far as that last sentence, that sounds like something you really need to think hard on. Bend over and take it? You must be Canadian.

  • rta

    Posted Oct 19, 2006 7:06 am PT

    Would we expect any less out of EA? Seriously? Don't push ads to my box in a game I paid good money for....

    Up theirs.

  • sam03is_

    Posted Oct 18, 2006 9:30 pm PT

    The fact of the matter is that there has been advertising in games since the days of the PS one and even the Super Nintendo. The only difference between EA signing with these firms is that instead of constantly looking at the same old adds day after day, you see what new products are out there. And hell, if you don't like the idea of it all then don't play the game or buy the products advertised in it. Send some nasty letters to EA saying how they aren't very nice because they made you cry.
    Personally, all i see EA doing is making us all very aware of the future of gaming cause believe me, they wont be the only ones to do it.
    Now EA have stated that they do not give out ANY personal or private information about the person playing there games. To me, this means that changing this rule would put EA and the other firms in jeopardy of there contract and would be sued for millions buy all teh pissed off gamers around who feel they have been violated.
    The sooner we accept the future for what it is going to be, the easier it will be on all of us.

  • Stan920

    Posted Oct 17, 2006 2:21 am PT

    Here something, the people that rent the servers and own the servers are getting screwed if this is true. They get nothing for serving up the ads or hosting the ads. It not like EA owns all the servers. At any rate, if ads are surfed up, just dont buy there products, and write the advertisers that you wont buy there products. Thats the only tool we have and we must all stick togeather for this to work.

  • nikeballerz

    Posted Oct 12, 2006 6:21 pm PT

    Ads sometimes makes games more realistic, like sports game etc. i wouldnt mind ads in NFS:C if its occasional. But in battlefield, i hope its not gonna be too far-fetched, like placing an ad just so there is an ad there....

  • onlineterrorism

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 7:27 am PT

    This is a stupid idea. If they are going to add Dynamic Ads, they need to lower the price range to purchase this game.

  • amd_fan

    Posted Sep 23, 2006 9:07 am PT

    If it's unintrusive then I wouldn't mind but If I hear a Pepsi Jingle advertised during the loading screen or if it goes out of it's way to download a video while I'm trying to play leaving me waitng then it is one title that will promptly be returned for a refund. It looks like this is a title that my Firewall will have to block from accessing the internet, I have no time to download videos that I don't want.

  • masterlu

    Posted Sep 23, 2006 2:29 am PT

    Right...this looks like fun. TBH, I don't think dynamic billboard ads in NFS:C would bother me that much, but I'll wait for the reviews... If gamespot tells me the ads are intrusive and bothersome then I'll just do the decent thing and support my local pirate instead of EA, which is probably something EA is expecting us to do.

    Make no mistake, EA is not stupid; I'm guessing they have a large number of very qualified and educated people constantly trying to figure out the effect something like this will have on sales and calculate which is better for cashflow, ads and plenty of negative publicity or no ads and just the regular amount of bad press.

    As for BF 2142 - I haven't finished playing BF2 yet, so I'll probably not be getting it anyway, looking forward to ET:QW.

  • Metr01973

    Posted Sep 17, 2006 8:08 am PT

    It doesn't really bother me that much but for gamers who don't like it, are there going to be pop-up blockers like we have in our browsers? Will there be some third party "hacker" who invents one so the ppl who don't want to see ads can have them blocked. But if this does happen, will it then make online play impossible, will punk buster have to program it in to the next update? Like I said before, it doesn't really bother me that much but for games that are suposed to be set 100 years in the future I don't want to see an advert for the latest mobile phone in 2006, it just won't work. An advert in a game such as GRAW for example where it's based just slightly in the future and on the "real" world, I think it would be OK. As long as advertisers don't MAKE us watch an advert , shove it down our throats every 2 minutes and as long as they make sure that they keep the adverts relevant to the game that we're playing then I can't see a problem with it. A really blatant piece of advertising in a recent game has to be Splinter Cell Chaos Theory with the Airwaves chewing gum, that was just OTT.

  • nodnarb77

    Posted Sep 11, 2006 11:37 pm PT

    I'm going to have to agree with many of the other comments here. I was probably a possible customer for buying both NFS:Carbon and/or Battlefield 2142, but without a price cut on the cost of the games there is no good reason for us, the gamers, to have these "dynamic advertisements". It might be time for big name publishers like EA to take note of what gamers want for a change. After all, gamers are truly the ones who control this market!

    I will not buy either of these games solely because of this included advertising. I'm sure they will be great, and I have owned every game in the Battlefield series, but not greater than games for gamers, like Guild Wars and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. (Which will be a great alternative for my battlefield "style" game addiction.)

    I'm sure there is a way for in-game advertising to work, but if we gamers are still paying full retail with these ads included it is a waste of our hard earned money and bandwidth.

  • PAthena_basic

    Posted Sep 10, 2006 6:19 am PT

    I have yet to see the price of movies or concession items decrease because of advertising at the movies, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one with games. In fact, I've seen the prices at the theaters RISE. I've just stopped going to the movies as often (except for those that I really want to see on the big screen) whereas, in the past, I may have gone just to do something, to hang out with friends, just to pass the time. The quiet before-movie time, of catching up with friends (yes, actual face to face conversation) is now ruined. Companies will always site rising costs to do all kinds of things, from laying off people when they don't have to, to screwing over the consumer, and somewhere waaaay out of our sight, someone (or a select group of people) are getting obscenely wealthy.

    While ads may not ruin all games, it COULD in certain types of games, or if it slows down the game, adds pop ups (for instance, in certain sporting games, stats might be automatically brought up just so they can show a logo) or takes us out of the gameplay. My friend who is a great fan of certain EA sports games was disgusted at all the "sponsored" events, logos all over load screens and the aforementioned bringing up of stats. I think, in games where you are someplace away from today's reality (fantasy setting, futuristic settings) they should really restrain themselves, and not put advertising, except perhaps at the back of the instruction book (if that). An occasional billboard, or some ad banners at sports settings (which is realistic) isn't too bad, but they are beginning to get more invasive now.

    And the reason that people make a big deal is that it disrespects the customer. It's saying "OK, so you paid $50 or $60 for a game. Doesn't matter. We're going to force you to see something just so we can make money off of it." As long as we allow businesses to disrespect us, I suppose we deserve what we get. I just hope that the many companies that I still respect will stay away from that practice.

Need for Speed Carbon Quick Links

Summary | Reviews | News | Images | Videos | Downloads | Answers | Hints & Cheats | Forum | Check Prices

Check Prices

GameStop $19.99 SHOP ›
advertisement
Need for Speed Carbon Boxshot Enlarge the boxshot
Need for Speed Carbon

Game Stats

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games
advertisement