For several years now, companies have been putting advertisements in video games. Most of the time, it’s subtle – instead of generic sounding brand names on soda machines, you see Bawls Energy Drink. Every now and then it’s just stupidly blatant (or perhaps blatantly stupid) – a boxing game with the King walking out into the ring, which has a huge Burger King logo on the mat. The problem is that the games still cost the same. Usually when something has advertisements in it, the cost for the consumer goes down. Television has commercials so the show itself is free (yes you pay for cable, but you’re not charged per episode of Heroes.) PayPerView, on the other hand, has no interruptions so you are charged per show. (Although it can be said that with product placement becoming more and more common in movies, you’re already watching an advertisement.) So if Tony Hawk Skateboarding games are loaded with billboards and energy drinks, why do the games still cost $50-70? If I have to watch ads for Jolt (mmmm Jolt) while I am playing something, I want that game’s price to be reduced, otherwise it’s like double-dipping. The game company gets the revenue for the game, as well as the revenue from the ad placement.
Now companies like Ubisoft are talking about releasing ad supported games – they will cost nothing but have more advertisements in them. I’m not sure how I feel about this. First of all, it IS Ubisoft. These idiots are notorious for bad copy protection schemes that only hurt the honest people (people who bought the game and can’t play it because something about their system somehow trips a red flag someplace, whereas the software pirates have removed all that crap and are happily playing the game problem free.) If the advertisement makes sense, then sure, go for it. A football or baseball game you watch on television is loaded with advertising signs, and they have been there so long that we don’t even really see them anymore. In my opinion, this is fine in a video game because, well, they are trying to mirror the real thing. As much as we may hate ads, there they are. In NASCAR games, stick sponsors on the cars. Why not? They are already there in real races. It’s gotten so bad that the drivers don’t even refer to their car anymore, it’s “The Geico Chevrolet” or “The Home Depot Volkswagen.” When the brand name becomes part of the generic, it’s gone too far. Here in Manchester, there is “The Verizon Wireless Arena.” Not the arena, not the stadium, the “Verizon Wireless Arena.” Like there is some sort of law that says you can ONLY call it that, and you MUST refer to it with the brand name included.
In a game like Grand Theft Auto or Crackdown, the billboards could have real ads for real products instead of making up ads for fake cell phone companies. Occasionally the ad is there to lead you to a location in the game, which would mean sticking a virtual Sprint store inside a virtual mall, which could quickly get silly if more people do this. Suddenly your virtual mall is filled with real product ads. There of course is only one recourse for this – be allowed to blow up the mall.
I highlighted the words “makes sense” up there, because this is the kind of thing that can quickly get ridiculous. If the ads fit into the world that the developers have created, then fine, go for it. In the recently released BioShock, there were ads all over the place, but these were ads that fit into the game. The environment was an underwater city that existed in the 60’s; this city was deigned to be self-sustaining, so naturally it would have its own shops, its own commerce, so of course there would be advertisements for those products. They were all fake, and I haven’t heard any complaints about them, but what if the developers decided to put real ads in? Suddenly they would have to be careful of what they used. In a game set in the 60’s, you’re not going to see ads for Helios or iPods.
You also have the idiot factor to contend with. If the ads are fake and designed to fit into the game world, the sky’s the limit, but as soon as you use real ads, there’s a whole new level of scrutiny. In BioShock, to stick with a recent example, there are ads for Incendiary Plasmids that would allow you to set things on fire from a distance. One of the ads shows someone lighting another person’s cigarette using Ignite. Considering this is a period piece, and smoking was new and trendy back then, thus far I have heard no whining. The idea of lighting a cigarette by snapping your fingers is still considered impossible, so that outweighs the idea that smoking is bad. However, I fully expect that if someone stuck Joe Camel in there, we’d hear all kinds of public outcry over how video games promote smoking in young people. So, smoking ads are okay as long as they don’t name a specific brand. Check. Same would go for alcohol ads – if it is an ad for Duff beer in a Simpsons game, no one would care because it belongs there. Put in an ad for Coors or Budweiser and the game would be pulled from the shelves. The only way to get it would be eBay or online retailers who would instantly raise the price due to the new demand (following the logic that the best way to increase sales is to ban it.) So now your game that was originally $20 due to advertisements costs $120 because it’s a rare item.