Activision and Electronic Arts Want to Drive Collaboration
Single gaming platform on the agenda once again.
The issue of a single gaming platform has raised its head once again as two of the video game industry's biggest players - and as such rivals - have put out a call to collaborate. But this isn't some strange, WWI Xmas-like pact, it's about in-game advertising. Within the call is the assertion that revenue raising is being held back by too much consumer choice in hardware.
According to the Online Daily Media website, "Activision, Electronic Arts and Double Fusion issued a call to action Tuesday during a panel discussion at the OMMA Global Hollywood conference. The move invites key ad agencies and video game publishers to form an organization that would assist in driving collaboration across the industry".
Double Fusion is a company that provides in-game ads for Eidos, 2K Sports, THQ and Midway among others. It does not provide the service to EA, which announced a new deal with Microsoft-owned, Massive this week.
According to the report, all was not an entirely unified oneness, however, as "Panelists stood divided on whether the current consortium, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), has adequately supported--or could provide future support for--ads in video games."
One thing was clear, however, none of the big players appreciates the bother of multiple platforms. Too much consumer choice, it seems, is bad for selling ads.
This, of course, takes us back to comments made by Gerhard Florin, EA's head of international publishing , in October last year when he said, "An open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible…We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden."
Back in October, we thought this was all about gaming choice, but apparently it's about the cash.
"Panelists said it's inefficient to expect buyers to purchase media insertions from several sources", said the report. In short, it's a pain in the backside to have to fill out a piece of paper ordering adverts on PlayStation, Wii and Xbox 360... when one insertion order would be less hassle. Well, at least the trees would celebrate.
Before we go, we thought we'd also like to give you an idea of how Double Fusion sees you, the gamer. Here are some choice cuts from its website:
We love the use of 'most gamers'.
"A soda they can almost taste"? Name that game... we can't.
Okay, the idea we were being sold previously was that in-game ads helped fund game development therefore increasing creativity and absolutely not diminishing choice. Have the goalposts shifted? Or are we seeing the reality? Your thoughts in the Forum please.
Source: [url=http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=78831]Online Media Daily
[/url]
According to the Online Daily Media website, "Activision, Electronic Arts and Double Fusion issued a call to action Tuesday during a panel discussion at the OMMA Global Hollywood conference. The move invites key ad agencies and video game publishers to form an organization that would assist in driving collaboration across the industry".
Double Fusion is a company that provides in-game ads for Eidos, 2K Sports, THQ and Midway among others. It does not provide the service to EA, which announced a new deal with Microsoft-owned, Massive this week.
According to the report, all was not an entirely unified oneness, however, as "Panelists stood divided on whether the current consortium, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), has adequately supported--or could provide future support for--ads in video games."
One thing was clear, however, none of the big players appreciates the bother of multiple platforms. Too much consumer choice, it seems, is bad for selling ads.
This, of course, takes us back to comments made by Gerhard Florin, EA's head of international publishing , in October last year when he said, "An open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible…We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden."
Back in October, we thought this was all about gaming choice, but apparently it's about the cash.
"Panelists said it's inefficient to expect buyers to purchase media insertions from several sources", said the report. In short, it's a pain in the backside to have to fill out a piece of paper ordering adverts on PlayStation, Wii and Xbox 360... when one insertion order would be less hassle. Well, at least the trees would celebrate.
Before we go, we thought we'd also like to give you an idea of how Double Fusion sees you, the gamer. Here are some choice cuts from its website:
"Most gamers believe that ads in games add to the realism and overall experience of playing video games and can have a positive impact."
We love the use of 'most gamers'.
"To gamers, it’s a billboard in a sports arena that adds authenticity, a storefront on a virtual street that makes it seem more realistic, or a soda they can almost taste. The creative possibilities are endless and only increase as technology moves forward."
"A soda they can almost taste"? Name that game... we can't.
"Like in Def Jam Fight for New York, we had to use the Sidekick to check our messages and listen to our voicemails, I like that, that's why I went and got myself a Sidekick 1."
Okay, the idea we were being sold previously was that in-game ads helped fund game development therefore increasing creativity and absolutely not diminishing choice. Have the goalposts shifted? Or are we seeing the reality? Your thoughts in the Forum please.
Source: [url=http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=78831]Online Media Daily
[/url]
Read More Like This
Comments
Dreadknux 19 Mar 2008 12:46
1/3
No. No no no.
It's called an industry collapse. It happened in the 1980s and it will happen again if we go down this road.
EA and Activision are real charmers. It's not amazing to hear a corporation is out for money, but man they're being arseholes about it.
It's called an industry collapse. It happened in the 1980s and it will happen again if we go down this road.
EA and Activision are real charmers. It's not amazing to hear a corporation is out for money, but man they're being arseholes about it.
Joji 19 Mar 2008 14:48
2/3
These byatches need to get with the program. Gamers do not give a stuff about in game advertising. Its you monkeys look to cash in that do.
I really think they are reaching a bit too much with this kind of talk. One single format is no solution and in fact I think would be step backwards.
Imagine a world of one format with evryone trying to sell their games, then consider the expanding industry and what goes on sale on a weekly basis. While EA and Activision might survive and perhaps break even, it would be a nightmare for others.
Atleast how things currently are us gamers have a choice. Ofcourse they'd love one format to save money, but I say screw you lmegacorps monkeys. I'd take free choice anyday.
I really think they are reaching a bit too much with this kind of talk. One single format is no solution and in fact I think would be step backwards.
Imagine a world of one format with evryone trying to sell their games, then consider the expanding industry and what goes on sale on a weekly basis. While EA and Activision might survive and perhaps break even, it would be a nightmare for others.
Atleast how things currently are us gamers have a choice. Ofcourse they'd love one format to save money, but I say screw you lmegacorps monkeys. I'd take free choice anyday.
PreciousRoi 19 Mar 2008 20:25
3/3
I actually agree that in-game advertising (caveat: if done correctly) can add a degree of realism to games.
I am just not sure that anyone is prepared to "do" in-game advertising correctly.
By "correctly" I mean in a realistic fashion, emulating the real world...that means Coke machines cohabitating with Pepsi machines...that means Energizer billboards staring across the street at Duracell. That means that you shouldn't see the same damn chain stores everywhere...unless its Starbuck's... Most especially that means not plastering the same 4 or 5 brands all over your game.
But advertisers pay more for exclusives...and I just don't think these people are mature enough to say no to money.
So perhaps having some sort of central administration of in game advertising is a good thing...instead of a dev setting up deals with 4 or 5 advertisers on a per game basis, they could incoporate hundreds, which would look much more realistic (in games set in our modern world at least)
I am just not sure that anyone is prepared to "do" in-game advertising correctly.
By "correctly" I mean in a realistic fashion, emulating the real world...that means Coke machines cohabitating with Pepsi machines...that means Energizer billboards staring across the street at Duracell. That means that you shouldn't see the same damn chain stores everywhere...unless its Starbuck's... Most especially that means not plastering the same 4 or 5 brands all over your game.
But advertisers pay more for exclusives...and I just don't think these people are mature enough to say no to money.
So perhaps having some sort of central administration of in game advertising is a good thing...instead of a dev setting up deals with 4 or 5 advertisers on a per game basis, they could incoporate hundreds, which would look much more realistic (in games set in our modern world at least)