With the announcement this weekend that U.S. men spend more money on games than on music, it comes as no surprise that the industry is rekindling its interest in incorporating real-world advertisements into the game space. After all, if a player is forced to interact with a brand within the context of a mission, that brand is more likely to stick longer than one presented via a 30 second TV commercial. I feel so dirty.
The New York Times has an in-depth look at the forthcoming business models which should make the game play experience more immersive/irritate the bejeezus out of gamers (delete as appropriate).
However, the virtual world Anarchy Online has come up with a crafty two-tier solution for those who want to eradicate unnecessary messages and those who don't really care. If you don't mind your virtual sword saying "Nike" on the side, subscription charges will be dropped. If you'd rather it didn't say anything at all, the premium rate will apply.
Players of Tony Hawk and other console games have no choice, even though the prices of console games are heading for a hike with the next generation of machines. Surely this kind of "subsidy" from mega-corps should counteract the financials necessary to bring a title to market?
As an aside, Gonzalo Frasca at Watercoolergames thinks that in-game ads are boring. Would you rather look at an in-game billboard or play with a simulated product? Which is the lesser of the two evils?
