Sony throws open doors to in-game advertising initiative

by Nick Doerr { Feb 25th 2008 at 11:30PM }

As the subject line indicates, Sony has opened up the PS3 to in-game advertisers. Many are expecting this move to ignite a battle between the three main advertisers that make their business off of in-game ads. The three big companies, Double Fusion, IGA, and AdScape, are able to strike deals with game publishers like EA or Ubisoft to get their junk into the PS3 games -- and, we expect, Home.

Don't worry, though. You won't get blasted by ads just yet -- this worry was one of the reasons why Sony wouldn't enter into an exclusive contract with one of the companies for advertising. A competitive model lets the companies play around with what works and what doesn't, "how to charge, what gamers will and will not put up with" and more. The article over at AdAge goes into the business and marketing side of the situation and really is a fascinating read for anyone who is in a related field.

Tags: home, psn

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

miglaugh @ Feb 25th 2008 11:44PM

Terrible news...

Put one strike in the column for "will not put up with".

Efeez1986 @ Feb 26th 2008 3:09AM

Your overreacting, Home is going to be a free service so in game advertising is acceptable. I love the fact that Sony is generous enough to give us Home for free, so in return i would like to see Sony make money from big name companies for in game advertising. The only people who should be complaining are silly Xbox fanboys who pay for their online services but still have to get advertisements thrown in their face.

Shadowen @ Feb 26th 2008 5:23AM

Wow, Live gets advertising even though they force people to pay? Lame.. XD
And now with Wii beginning to charge.. why are they competeing with Sony again? >.>

SKI @ Feb 26th 2008 9:27AM

Nintendo revealed a potential "Pay & Play" option for developers who want to charge for online (e.g. MMO developers). It's not a Live-esqe subscription.

SSG @ Feb 25th 2008 11:48PM

Viagra... wtf

Titty Pink @ Feb 25th 2008 11:54PM

Does this mean the cost of games will go down? I mean that SHOULD be the end result. The "X" amount of millions of dollars that Coke, Pepsi or whomever pours into the title should result in a lower price for the consumer...right?

derickoleary @ Feb 26th 2008 12:40AM

Ideally... Doubt it will happen though.

Popfrogs @ Feb 26th 2008 12:40AM

You would think so, but so far games with in-game ads don't cost any less. Companies are just using ad fees to subsidize stockholder value. It does nothing for the gamer.

jimmyink @ Feb 26th 2008 1:51AM

Not really a big issue as long as it's done tastefully, eg. billboards in racing games vs billboards in adventure games.

Ads on the track of GT5 wouldn't be annoying whereas I'm sure a macca's ad will look quite right while you are slaying a monster in the shadow of colossus...

Organic_Shadow @ Feb 26th 2008 10:03AM

I agree. If it's naturally placed advertising that's not that big of a deal, but when it starts to get to 1up/IGN levels with "click here to continue to your game" then im going to start lobbing heads off.

Another thing that worries me is that you will see a futuristic game with modern(ie: old) ads on the billboards, and it will kill the mood. Also, how would they even put advertising in games like Assassins Creed?

c.Lake @ Feb 26th 2008 2:27PM

Yeah, LOL -- When has "advertising" ever done anything "tastefully"? This is just the thin edge of the wedge. That will easily be fix by closing the door on "Home" altogether, the second they piss me off even a little.

I'll give them 6 months, before we see this completely out of hand. Wait, Christmas now starts in September -- let's make that 4 months.

Grasp @ Feb 26th 2008 1:57AM

I wouldn't mind in certain games.. something like GTA or any other "real world" type game - racing, shooter etc.. it would enhance the realism in some aspects if you were playing burnout and there were actually billboards for Pepsi and Cingular, just like real life.. I just hope I don't see the terrible ones for the real estate agents with a huge face on a billboard that says "join my team" and the hands are up in victory... those annoy me like the douchebaggery of those HD-DVDers.. (remember them?)

S. Ten. @ Feb 26th 2008 2:00AM

(The preceeding comment was a paid advertisment from Pepsico Incorporated. The views expressed do not neccesarily reflect the author of the post, this site or the intro-web as a whole. Any similarity to thoughts others may have is purely coincidental. Drink Pepsi - Bill Cosby would)

Shadowen @ Feb 26th 2008 5:18AM

I just hope they stick to game and game related advertising, I dont want to see a toyota commercial in home :(

Andir3.0 @ Feb 26th 2008 7:08AM

That wouldn't be as bad as showing a Toyota commercial in... say Resistance. Unless it was a alternate future Toyota with a mini-gun. But then what's the point in advertising for an item you can't buy?

ScottyGEE32 @ Feb 26th 2008 5:58AM

Now I've updated my list of game companies that I dislike due to advertising:
EA
Microsoft (for xbox live ads, seriously, we already pay for it)
Ubisoft
Now Sony...wait, read the below bit before negating me into oblivion =p

The only difference, and an understandable difference, is that HOME and their online is free. If EA and Ubisoft made games cheaper coz of the advertising in them, then I'd respect them. But no, its all for the stockholders and nothing for the gamers that are thought to be so thick we wouldn't hate them.

sibbor @ Feb 26th 2008 7:13AM

As long as the commercial/adds doesn't interfere with the game - or in this case, with Home - I don't give a damn. The commercial adds a bit of reality to the game, if used with caution. If I know Sony right this will not be an issue - they're going to use trailers, billboards and wall charts with game related stuff on.

Home is free - and the adds is a good way to make some profit out of a good service.

NyghtcrawleR @ Feb 26th 2008 11:45AM

As long as its not obtrusive I dont care. Its like Burnout Paradise with the Vizio ads and such, you dont really notice them since theyre just billboards like the game has anyway.

Popfrogs @ Feb 26th 2008 12:47PM

Not only that but I seriously doubt anyone playing a game will even be influenced by in-game advertising. The whole concept is retarded.

carlvjack @ Feb 26th 2008 5:59PM

I do not see what the big deal is, as long as it is not intrusive in your virtual "personal space". If they are trying to create a Second Life type system which would mirror real life, you are bombarded with advertisements already. So much so that you are used to it.

Aalaap @ Feb 27th 2008 8:24AM

I've been waiting for them to do this for a long time. But only if they do it the way I think they should: non-intrusive ads like the ones in Burnout Paradise - ads on billboards, branded cars - and FPS-type games where pretty much anyplace like a flyer or big ad on an alley wall etc.

What I think they shouldn't do: popups / HUD-advertising like the Cingular logo in NFS Underground 2. I haven't ever seen popups in games, but if I do, I'll probably stop gaming.

Aalaap @ Feb 27th 2008 8:26AM

And I forgot to add... the main purpose of putting advertising in games would be to help drive down the cost of games and/or the consoles... if they're going to charge us the same amount of money and still shove ads in our faces, well, to hell with it, then.

Knowledge X @ Feb 27th 2008 1:15PM

Doesn't anyone realize that PlayStation Network and Home still cost money to run. As consumers we are getting it for free. So don't you think that the ad dollars can pay for that?