In Game Advertising and NCAA 2005

[Ajaxab]

I tried to have this discussion on another board, but the participants there didn't have the IQ to deal with it in a sensible way. Basically, I'm wondering what people think about the 'Old Spice Red Zone' and the 'Pontiac College Classics' in NCAA 2005. To me, EA is getting away with murder sticking these ads in the game and still charging us $50 for it.

The argument that has been made in support of these things is that it adds to the realism of the game. I am willing to buy that argument if it applies to things like signs in stadiums, swooshes on uniforms, Revolution helmets, etc. These things actually exist in real life. I don't mind an advertising sign in that situation. That would be realistic.

What is not realistic is this garbage like the 'Old Spice Red Zone' and 'Pontiac College Classics' (with its horribly awful car skidding across the field). These things are not realistic because they do not exist in real life. Some have said that these things are realistic in that they mimic things like the Chevrolet Most Valuable Player blah, blah, blah. Thing is, we're getting real life tv broadcasts 'free' because of sponsors and advertising like the Chevy MVP. We're still dropping $50 on this game.

What would be realistic in terms of these in game ads would be getting the game at a discount or free entirely rather than paying $50 for it. Then it would be like television. If EA wants to give us ads, then don't insult us by having us pay full price for the game. Treat your product like a television show.

Of course, I'm not optimistic that anything will change, but it would be nice to get the word out.

[Kodos]

Yeah, that annoys me too.

[Poli]

I concur.

[kcchief19]

Several different arguments and topics here:

* Are they realistic? By and large yes. A lot of televised sports broadcast have sponsored-elements including replays, statistics and the like.

* Is it annoying in a game? Absolutely. I think it makes EA look cheap and I think it takes away from the game's integrity.

* Should EA sell the game at a discount for having advertising? That's up to them. They are going to sell the game at the price that will generate the most profit. If people don't buy the game because it has advertising, they may have to adjust the price -- up or down -- to find a point that maximizes profits.

If you're going to hold EA to the standard that when they insert advertising in the game they shouldn't charge "full price," I think you'd have to hold that standard to others as well. Does ESPN give you a refund on your cable bill for the advertising they slide into games? How about Fox when you see ad superimposed behind home plate during a game?

You're right, don't be optimistic for change -- the only change would come if people don't buy the game.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I like it! Adds realism.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I like it! Adds realism.

Same here.

[Sun Tzu]

I'd rather be in a league run by Hornsmaniac.

[Eaglesfan27]

I didn't like it at first, but now I just ignore it and it doesn't bother me.

[Cringer]

Movies are worse, I can live with it


Everything is about advertising...........

LOOK AT MY SIGNATURE

[Cards4ever]

It would be fine if you could skip through it, but, you can't. I don't mind the red zone one, cause I'm making a play, but the Pontiac thing is bogus and needs to go, can't skip through that one.

[VPI97]

Nothing that trivial ever bother me.

[CraigSca]

I think this complaint is ridiculous. It doesn't take anything from the game (i.e. it doesn't take 15 seconds extra of dead time to load the Pontiac logo or anything) and, in a way, makes the game even look more like a typical TV broadcast.

The complaint that EA should be offering us a discount as if they're some kind of non-profit organization is laughable. EA does not make some arbitrary price point for their products. They charge $50 because it maximizes the profits (and people are willing to pay it). What would cause the price to lower (or the product to go away altogether) is if the buying public voted "no" with their wallet.

Companies all the time are looking for additional means of revenue so they can increase profits, and increase value to their shareholders. Would it be NICE if they passed along the added revenue to their consumers? Yes, but business-wise it would be a poor decision (unless you're pulling an ESPN by lowering the cost of your game to gain market share - EA doesn't have to do that).

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If you're going to hold EA to the standard that when they insert advertising in the game they shouldn't charge "full price," I think you'd have to hold that standard to others as well. Does ESPN give you a refund on your cable bill for the advertising they slide into games? How about Fox when you see ad superimposed behind home plate during a game?

I agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, we have come to accept this as a viable norm on television. I guess I'm wondering if it's already too late to put a stop to it in games.

Would we care if Jim designated the draft in FOF as the Swiffer Picker Upper FOF Draft? Would we care if SI decided to label free transfer signings as the UPS Delivery of the Day free transfer? Of course, I'm sure the offers are just pouring in and pitchmen are beating down their doors. Anyways, it seems that EA has already gotten so out of control on this that it's impossible to stop, but what about those games that have a smaller following like the text sims we all love?

[CraigSca]

I think that through the years we've all grown to tolerate this stuff. If Jim decided to make this "2nd and 3" brought to you by Borax Soap...and it added 1-2 secs per play in each simmed game, yes, people would complain. However, at this point it's just window dressing and has no impact on the game.

One caveat I have - you mention a Pontiac car flying across the screen in an earlier post. I have the PS2 version and I don't remember seeing anything other than the Pontiac logo during the "Pontiac Drive Report". If you're actually made to wait for a stupid Pontiac automobile to fly across the screen then yes, I do take issue because it effects gameplay.

[CraigSca]

Dola - Jim did add the Top 25 High Schools brought to you by Rivals.com in TCY. I'm not sure if real $$$ changed hands to make this happen, but if so, should we all be asking for a discount on TCY?

[Cards4ever]

Check out a College Classic.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I think this complaint is ridiculous. It doesn't take anything from the game (i.e. it doesn't take 15 seconds extra of dead time to load the Pontiac logo or anything) and, in a way, makes the game even look more like a typical TV broadcast.

This is interesting. kcchiefs thinks it makes EA look cheap, yet you think it makes the game look more like the typical tv broadcast. What's the difference between Craigsca and kcchiefs? Is it just a matter of preference?

Originally Posted by CraigSca

The complaint that EA should be offering us a discount as if they're some kind of non-profit organization is laughable. EA does not make some arbitrary price point for their products. They charge $50 because it maximizes the profits (and people are willing to pay it). What would cause the price to lower (or the product to go away altogether) is if the buying public voted "no" with their wallet.

Companies all the time are looking for additional means of revenue so they can increase profits, and increase value to their shareholders. Would it be NICE if they passed along the added revenue to their consumers? Yes, but business-wise it would be a poor decision (unless you're pulling an ESPN by lowering the cost of your game to gain market share - EA doesn't have to do that).

I have no problems with your logic (as much as you put words in my mouth about EA being a nonprofit organization). Of course EA is a business and of course that means they want to maximize profits. But don't we see enough advertising in a day? It would be kinda nice to be able to get my team inside the 20 yard line without having to be reminded that my body stinks and needs help. It would be nice to be able to play a game with a classic team without being reminded that Pontiac is an allegedly classic vehicle (Yes, the car does drive across the screen).

I guess I'm just concerned about the amount of advertising we see. Of course it's easy to say one doesn't care and that it doesn't affect them. Nobody ever buys anything because it's been advertised. We're much too savvy for that.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I like it! Adds realism.

[sachmo71]

I think it makes EA look cheap and I think it takes away from the game's integrity.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

This is interesting. kcchiefs thinks it makes EA look cheap, yet you think it makes the game look more like the typical tv broadcast. What's the difference between Craigsca and kcchiefs? Is it just a matter of preference?



I have no problems with your logic (as much as you put words in my mouth about EA being a nonprofit organization). Of course EA is a business and of course that means they want to maximize profits. But don't we see enough advertising in a day? It would be kinda nice to be able to get my team inside the 20 yard line without having to be reminded that my body stinks and needs help. It would be nice to be able to play a game with a classic team without being reminded that Pontiac is an allegedly classic vehicle (Yes, the car does drive across the screen).

I guess I'm just concerned about the amount of advertising we see. Of course it's easy to say one doesn't care and that it doesn't affect them. Nobody ever buys anything because it's been advertised. We're much too savvy for that.

Actually, I have no problem with your complaint either. I would rather play a game that had no advertising, but it doesn't really effect me too much as long as the advertising does not effect gameplay (i.e. add needless to time to wait for a Pontiac to fly across the screen before I can play). However, I did disagree with your point that EA (or any other company) should pass along savings to the consumer via a discount because they are recognizing additional profits due to in-game advertising.

Again, if this advertising physically effects gameplay in any way (besides eye candy) then yes, I would argue that something is owed to the game player. However, even discounted, I would probably just be much less likely to buy a game that forces me to wait 5 seconds while they load "Cute Product Tie-In #3".

[henry296]

Perhaps the advertising dollars are offsetting the incremental cost of developing the game with all the new features that everyone was raving about. Therefore, without the in game advertising the actual price of the game would be higher and instead of passing the costs to the consumers, EA Sports went out and got advertisers.

[Cringer]

To go off subject a little, how many of you are really influenced by advertisements? I barely pay attention to them on tv or in a game or whatever. I don't buy much name-brand stuff and never will (which most commercials are for), and I can't remember the last time I saw an add and thought I had to go out and get some Tide to do my wash, or had to go to my doctor to get yet another RX drug.......

[ice4277]

Well, if we are going to have advertisements, I would much rather see the real thing than 'Bob's Auto Care' or something like that, as games in the past have done. As long as it doesn't add any extra time to what I am doing, it doesn't bother me and makes the presentation seem more realistic. I already own a Pontiac, and Red Zone never worked good for me, so it won't make a difference to me in the long run.

[Sharpieman]

Games should have been adding ad's a long time ago. It's a very smart thing to do. I applaud EA for taking advantage of this opportunity. I think it adds realism to the game. I would love to see ad's in MVP and Madden for real products, it adds realism to the game.

I don't get the argument that we should pay less because they have ad's in the game. There are ad's all over stadiums, does that mean that the teams should give us a discount? No.

Off the subject a little, I hope for a day when there is such in depth franchise modes in MVP or Madden that you can get ad deals from real companies and put them where ever you want on your stadium and add that money that you get from the deal to your budget.

[Daimyo]

It sucks that they forced you to spend $50 to buy the game. Did they use a gun or a knife?

[sabotai]

I wonder how much in game ads there will be in ESPN Football 2k5. I wonder if that was a big reason why they could afford to price it at just $20...

It does make you wonder, though. Could there be a future in free games with ads? One big hurdle would of course be people hacking the game and taking the ads out or putting something else over them.

[korme]

Originally Posted by sabotai

It does make you wonder, though. Could there be a future in free games with ads?

No.

[sabotai]

Thanks Shorty....care to elaborate?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Games should have been adding ad's a long time ago. It's a very smart thing to do. I applaud EA for taking advantage of this opportunity. I think it adds realism to the game. I would love to see ad's in MVP and Madden for real products, it adds realism to the game.

I don't get the argument that we should pay less because they have ad's in the game. There are ad's all over stadiums, does that mean that the teams should give us a discount? No.

Off the subject a little, I hope for a day when there is such in depth franchise modes in MVP or Madden that you can get ad deals from real companies and put them where ever you want on your stadium and add that money that you get from the deal to your budget.

i like that idea, very realistic. you could also be solicited by companies to change the name of your stadium every so often (since these console games are 30 year max dynasties, figure maybe every 5 or so years).

the in-game ads don't bother me, i think they give the games an added touch of realism.

i wish the create-a-sign feature was available for online mode too. i'd have a ball.

[Ajaxab]

I think one of the issues here is what counts as realistic. What do we mean by realism? Is realism simply about football? Is realism about making the game as much like an interactive television broadcast as possible?

A second issue concerns choice. It's disturbing that we should be forced to watch the Pontiac car skid across the field after every play in college classics mode. It would be more palatable if they at least offered an option to turn it off after you've seen it once. Being forced to watch advertising moves this product beyond television. At least we can change the channel if we don't want to see the commercials. I can't suddenly switch games while the Pontiac appears. If I want to play the game I have to watch the ad. That is plainly coercive. Perhaps this is too drastic for some, but give us a choice to turn it off or give us compensation for having to put up with it.

[kingnebwsu]

I mocked the in-game advertisements in all 2.5 games I played of NCAA.

[panerd]

Catch me up on what this ad thing is all about, I just got back from buying a trans-am.

[EagleFan]

"I....conquer"


Actually, if it kept a 50 dollar game from being a 70 dollar game, then I an all for it. I'm not big on the adds realism arguement though as I hate that stuff in real life. "Now down the the (whoever paid us the most) kickoff." "That was a (whoever paid us the most) sack of the game, forget about the previous (whoever paid us the most) sack of the game." "Here we have the (anti-itch cream) jock itch of the game, wow what great form as he is obviously getting full coverage using that digging motion."

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Cringer

To go off subject a little, how many of you are really influenced by advertisements? I barely pay attention to them on tv or in a game or whatever. I don't buy much name-brand stuff and never will (which most commercials are for), and I can't remember the last time I saw an add and thought I had to go out and get some Tide to do my wash, or had to go to my doctor to get yet another RX drug.......

I guess thats why the colors on your clothes look faded, and your wife is not satisfied

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting ad question...

1. I think the primary way that ads impact me is when I'm deciding to change products. For example, I used to use Mennen Speed Stick deodorant. However, when I got married, my wife realized that she had a mild allergy to it, so it came time to switch. The first ones I tried out were ones I'd "heard of" (Right Guard, Old Spice, etc.) How had I heard of them? Advertising.

2. When buying a product for the first time, I suspect that advertising makes a bigger difference, for the same reason I mentioned above. I had never subscribed to a college football recruiting service until this past season. Guess which one I picked? Yup, Rivals.Com got my business because of TCY. Did I really know anything about them? No. They were the one with the greatest name recognition. (Granted, they got an extra boost because they advertised with someone I feel like I "know"--Jim--as opposed to a faceless, nameless entity like EA. They got an extra boost for helping out Solecismic.)

3. As far as the specifics, I don't have this game in particular, but I'm with Craig in that if it doesn't slow down game play, I have no problem with it, and to me it helps add a touch of realism. I haven't gotten too far into Tiger Woods 2004, but so far I like the idea of "sponsorships" in that game--and I'm assuming that the better I get, the more high-profile companies will want to sponsor me. Good stuff!

[SunDancer]

If you think about it, the game already had in-game advertising way back. The FedEx Orange Bowl, the Outback Bowl, ect. Sure, EA Sports didnt get money for it, but its still advertising. Play these games, you get the sponsors title and logo mention and seen all over the field. To me, its better then EA Sports old Playstation versions with the Tiburion Bowl, EA Sports Bowl, ect.

I think Advertising is more about creating a recongition and trying to tell you about that company.

[Ajaxab]

Is there a difference between something like the FedEx Orange Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. and the Pontiac College Classics? It would seem as if it is precisely replicating a real life event, then it could count as adding to the realism of the game. I think this is where I differ from some of the people above. Some others see realism as anything that imitates (but not necessarily replicates) a real life television production. For them, the Old Spice Red Zone isn't a problem as it imitates the way in which some tv productions work.

However, realism for me is about exact replication when it comes to advertising. I don't have a problem with the FedEx Orange Bowl, Riddell helmets or Callaway clubs on TW 2004 even though these sponsors have contributed to the ad-saturated nature of our current sports environment. Those things replicate real life. The Pontiac College Classic does not replicate real life as there are no television broadcasts featuring a car skidding across the field after every play reminding us about how this car is fuel for the soul (right....). I can see broadcasts regretably moving in this direction with some of their graphics, but EA has departed from a realistic form of advertising with this one.

Sadly, the question might be becoming what is realistic advertising and what is not? I find it unfortunate that we have skipped questioning the presence of advertising in the games themselves to how well they represent advertising.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Sadly, the question might be becoming what is realistic advertising and what is not? I find it unfortunate that we have skipped questioning the presence of advertising in the games themselves to how well they represent advertising.

I don't think it is sad at all. The reality is that unobtrusive in-game advertising increases revenue for the game company, and it is therefore here to stay. The small percentage of people who would avoid a game on some sort of "moral" ground due to the very presence of advertising is insignificant in the big picture.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I find it unfortunate that we have skipped questioning the presence of advertising in the games themselves to how well they represent advertising.

I believe you're sincere about that ("find it unfortunate") ... but I'll be doggoned if I understand why it's an issue.

Nobody forces you to play the game. Period.
And you have no divine right to play it. Period.

And the additional revenue they generate either
a) holds the cost of the game down a little

and/or

b) increases the profit margin, thereby increasing motivation to continue to develop/produce games

Since there's no coercion used against you, and there's at least a potential benefit, darned if I see where this is an issue worth even a half-second of concern.

[Anthony]

98% of all games are basically $49.99, Jon, what could they have added to the game that would make it not only necessary to charge more than normal, but to have to use excessive in-game ads to offset the cost and to bring back the price?

that Pontiac car doesn't come out *every* play, does it? i wouldn't know - i only play either the online mode or dynasty mode, i don't do exhibitions. that would bother if it came out like all the time, or at least the same ad came out every time. i wouldn't mind it if they had a pool of like 10 ads they used. but the same animation over and over is silly. i thought you were just talking about the "Old Spice Red Zone" thing and the [Insert Company Name Here] Players of the game. that stuff doesn't bother me.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe you're sincere about that ("find it unfortunate") ... but I'll be doggoned if I understand why it's an issue.

Nobody forces you to play the game. Period.
And you have no divine right to play it. Period.

And the additional revenue they generate either
a) holds the cost of the game down a little

and/or

b) increases the profit margin, thereby increasing motivation to continue to develop/produce games

Since there's no coercion used against you, and there's at least a potential benefit, darned if I see where this is an issue worth even a half-second of concern.

I cannot disagree with the points you make above. Certainly ads could do precisely what you suggest and certainly no one is coerced into purchasing a given product. However, game companies have been doing just fine in being motivated to produce better games long before the imbrication of ads into their games.

We know what advertising is designed to do and we know that it works in spite of what people will claim about being able to ignore it. Skydog pointed out that it's all about brand awareness so Pontiac and Old Spice are getting more than their share of brand awareness by advertising in these games. Brand awareness increases the likelihood that a given individual will purchase that product. As such, advertising increases the likelihood that that individual will be tempted to consume something they don't need. When the average American carries several thousand dollars of credit card debt from month to month, shouldn't we be concerned about the increasing number of ads in places where they are not necessary (ie. NCAA 2005)? It would seem ridiculous to believe that advertising didn't play some role in that debt. In many respects, ads in NCAA 2005 serve as an example of a larger concern I have about the excessively ad-driven society we live in.

As I said before, I am not optimistic things will change, but I'm pleased to see that people are at least thinking about this issue.

[Sharpieman]

BTW has anyone seen the new Pontiac GTO in person? I saw it at a car show a few months back before it came out and it was fucking sick!

Lol, sorry continue on...

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

We know what advertising is designed to do and we know that it works in spite of what people will claim about being able to ignore it. Skydog pointed out that it's all about brand awareness so Pontiac and Old Spice are getting more than their share of brand awareness by advertising in these games. Brand awareness increases the likelihood that a given individual will purchase that product. As such, advertising increases the likelihood that that individual will be tempted to consume something they don't need. When the average American carries several thousand dollars of credit card debt from month to month, shouldn't we be concerned about the increasing number of ads in places where they are not necessary (ie. NCAA 2005)? It would seem ridiculous to believe that advertising didn't play some role in that debt. In many respects, ads in NCAA 2005 serve as an example of a larger concern I have about the excessively ad-driven society we live in.

Again, I'm going to have to side with the "this is ridiculous" department. If this is really your argument - that we're inundated with advertising and Americans suffer from credit card debt - why draw your line in the sand here? Believe it or not, advertising is needed to run a business. Believe it or not, there are many products out there that ARE essential.

American credit card debt has nothing to do with the "ruthless" advertisers who constantly dangle the carror in front of the dysfunctional and lobotomized American public. Have the American people strap on some fiscal responsibility and the debt will go away. In the meantime, don't blame the companies that give the American people the products they want to buy...(including NCAA 2005, or the products advertised in the game)

[Cards4ever]

I don't think there should be any problem with having the option to turning these ads off either, do you?

As I said before, when a play is over, I can hit the A button on my controller and skip through the replay to get to the next play, I can't do that when they are showing me the Pontiac Drive summary or during the College Classics when they are having the car slide across the field. The advertisements do not allow for a skip through, that is what is wrong with these ads.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Again, I'm going to have to side with the "this is ridiculous" department. If this is really your argument - that we're inundated with advertising and Americans suffer from credit card debt - why draw your line in the sand here? Believe it or not, advertising is needed to run a business. Believe it or not, there are many products out there that ARE essential.

American credit card debt has nothing to do with the "ruthless" advertisers who constantly dangle the carror in front of the dysfunctional and lobotomized American public. Have the American people strap on some fiscal responsibility and the debt will go away. In the meantime, don't blame the companies that give the American people the products they want to buy...(including NCAA 2005, or the products advertised in the game)

Advertising is not necessary for running a business. There are many television and radio networks around the world that function quite well without advertising (BBC is probably the most prominent example).

Yes, some products are essential, but it does not follow that advertising (assuming we're working from the same definition of advertising) is needed to make people aware of essential products. People were able to find what they needed long before advertising began in the 17th century.

The line is drawn in the sand here because NCAA 2005 is something many in this community are familiar with and are consuming (myself included). The game was being improved just fine without the unnecessary advertising (albeit small piece of advertising) included in this year's edition. It seems that the Pontiac ad does not interfere with gameplay to a great degree, but it does push that line just a bit further to make gamers more tolerant of ad related gameplay interruptions.

You seem to be separating American fiscal responsibility and advertising. Is it not plausible to suggest that there might be a connection between the two? The average American's debt is far greater today than it was fifty/seventy/one hundred years ago. People were certainly less exposed to advertising then than they are now. Radio history tells us that advertisers were very reluctant to put ads on radio for fear of offending people so they initially refrained. But the government decided radio would be commercial giving the radio ad men free rein. At this point newspapers, magazines and radio target people with ads. Then television picked up on radio's commercial model providing us with more advertisements and more incentive to consume things. The average American's debt ratio has not remained the same and has definitely not decreased since the time prior to radio's introduction. The inundation of advertising has to have something to do with this. I find it extremely difficult to believe that there is no connection.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Cards4ever

I don't think there should be any problem with having the option to turning these ads off either, do you?

As I said before, when a play is over, I can hit the A button on my controller and skip through the replay to get to the next play, I can't do that when they are showing me the Pontiac Drive summary or during the College Classics when they are having the car slide across the field. The advertisements do not allow for a skip through, that is what is wrong with these ads.

I absolutely agree. At the very least, let us turn these things off.