Free to play model - your opinions
[QUOTE=H0RSE;411923]Well, perhaps you need to factor in some things. First off, Quake is, well, old…In that time, in-game ads were either unheard, or a new concept, in either case, they were mostly frowned upon. When Quakelive launched, I’d wager much of the fanbase were fans of the original, with that “purist” mindset, compared to new players the game brought in. Second, Quake is all about Arena play, and the maps reflect this, making an odd place to plaster in-game ads.
[/QUOTE]
An arena game is the perfect place to work in advertising. All sports have advertising and the premise of Q3 is that it’s a sport.
There may be a small point about the purist mindset of the fanbase but I doubt that’s it.
If you watch the video JC states that the online advertising agencies collapsed. And the last game I can think of with in-game advertising was Deus-EX:HR (only in the States and only on the load screens) and there was much bru-ha-ha and controversy when it was added (although how much of that was forum noise I don’t know). I’d be inclined to believe JC about in-game advertising not being viable more than I’d blame the player base for being against it.
Dirty Bomb is a new game, released in a time where in-game ads are not a foreign concept and much more accepted among players. It also takes place on Earth in real-world environments, making for a much more natural setting to showcase them. If done well, they could act to make the environments feel that much more life-like.
When was the last time you saw in-game adverts? Maybe some sports games (I don’t play any) but I can’t actually remember seeing an advert in a game since Alan Wake using product placement.
I think that, while some of us here would be fine with it or even welcoming, a lot of players out there don’t like it. Amongst the small sample size we have here we already have people voicing their opinions against advertising in-game.
The more I think about it the more it seems like it’d be too much hassle to implement and police and it’s not worth the possible community backlash.
ETQW was the last time I saw ads in a game. Unfortunately, the billboards didn’t really make sense except maybe on outskirts. That being the only civilian area I’d expect to see them.
If sockdog wanted to push it, it would also be a venue for his player karma ideas to be exhibited.
How about sponsored guns like in Borderlands? Instead of it being made up companies like Jacobs or Hyperion, have proper companies put their name to them… nVidia Double Shotgun or Intel Sharpshooter Sniper. Apple could have guns that are exactly the same as everyone elses but cost twice the XP to obtain
I will never see the appeal of name-brand items but don’t forget there’s likely clothing customization.
[QUOTE=zenstar;412019]An arena game is the perfect place to work in advertising. All sports have advertising and the premise of Q3 is that it’s a sport.
There may be a small point about the purist mindset of the fanbase but I doubt that’s it.[/quote]
You’re kind of missing the point. What year does Q3 take place in? The Coke or Pepsi even exist in this time? While rocket jumping and gibbing other players, rangning from walking skeletons, giant eyeballs with hands, and alien races, I can’t think of many things more out of place than an ad for Nike lighting up the nighttime sky… Now if this was Madden or NHL, that’s a different story.
When was the last time you saw in-game adverts? Maybe some sports games (I don’t play any) but I can’t actually remember seeing an advert in a game since Alan Wake using product placement.
I think that, while some of us here would be fine with it or even welcoming, a lot of players out there don’t like it. Amongst the small sample size we have here we already have people voicing their opinions against advertising in-game.
The more I think about it the more it seems like it’d be too much hassle to implement and police and it’s not worth the possible community backlash.
I’m talking about a F2P game model, you are using retail games as a counter-argument. The fact that it is a retail priced game (like Alan Wake or Deus Ex: HR) makes the ‘need’ for in game ads, a much lesser concern. It also tends to make people more annoyed seei9ng ingame ads in “their” game.
In a F2P game, the added finances ingame ads can bring, can be a a much ‘needed’ help, and I believe players would be much more forgiving seeing ads in a f2p game, rather than a game they bought and paid for.
Now I’m not saying in game ads would definitely work. I’m simply stating that I believe in DB, they have a chance of working out better than perhaps they did in other games, based on not only the f2p model, but also the setting.
I think the concept of “ownership” is completely outdated and time for an upgrade. It’s such a cumbersome burden.
Still a powerful sentiment nonetheless. I buy stuff on steam not because I want to play it but just because I like to have it in my collection. Superficial I know, but I can’t help feeling that way.
[QUOTE=H0RSE;412111]You’re kind of missing the point. What year does Q3 take place in? The Coke or Pepsi even exist in this time? While rocket jumping and gibbing other players, rangning from walking skeletons, giant eyeballs with hands, and alien races, I can’t think of many things more out of place than an ad for Nike lighting up the nighttime sky… Now if this was Madden or NHL, that’s a different story.
[/QUOTE]
They could easily work things in to fit the atmosphere. Do I think they’ll be advertising drinks and sportswear in the future? yes… yes I do. Maybe add in lines like “Earth’s most popular fizzy drink” or “run as fast as a Martian Greeb with these shoes” but at the end of the day I can see it fitting in if they wanted to make the effort. Or even if they just use brand logos to promote brand recognition. Most logos would fit in almost anywhere.
But that’s also besides the point: The in-game advertising companies crumbled (according to JC in that youtube link). Doesn’t matter if the ads would have worked or not if the agencies aren’t around to do it.
I’m talking about a F2P game model, you are using retail games as a counter-argument. The fact that it is a retail priced game (like Alan Wake or Deus Ex: HR) makes the ‘need’ for in game ads, a much lesser concern. It also tends to make people more annoyed seei9ng ingame ads in “their” game.
I said “When was the last time you saw an in-game advert”? I’m talking EVER here. F2p or Sub or P2P… ever??? I can’t think of any which is why I asked the question. I can’t remember an example of any recent game with successful advertising so does it matter if it’s f2p or p2p?
In a F2P game, the added finances ingame ads can bring, can be a a much ‘needed’ help, and I believe players would be much more forgiving seeing ads in a f2p game, rather than a game they bought and paid for.
Agree with this and already previously noted that in this thread. We kinda moved onto the point where we’re discussing if the development time is even worth it because all current indications point towards in-game advertising revenue not being worth it. Remember it costs money to have someone maintaining the adverts and going out and getting the contracts and doing the marketing gumpf not to mention initial investment to develop the system to serve the adverts and work them into the game without hacking in a system that’ll cause more hassle than it’s worth.
And then having an artist on hand to help make the style fit the game (to do it properly). And all that and you still risk a possible negative backlash.
Now I’m not saying in game ads would definitely work. I’m simply stating that I believe in DB, they have a chance of working out better than perhaps they did in other games, based on not only the f2p model, but also the setting.
Yeah. It might work in DB, but my guess is that ingame adverts don’t tend to work. But I’m going purely on anecdotal feedback and an interview on youtube (and memories of the forum rage when deus ex introduced ads).
Unless someone here works in marketing and has some experience in the field we’re just speculating here and I think we’ve gotten to the point of unfounded opinion vs unfounded opinion and without fresh information we’ll just be spinning our wheels.
I think the concept of “ownership” is completely outdated and time for an upgrade. It’s such a cumbersome burden.
This is an entirely separate discussion. To actually get into that you have to define ownership and distinguish physical goods and digital goods and then copyright and licensing gets into the discussion and then we can separate out an entire new forum to raging pirates vs raging publishers vs DRM vs people in the middle running for cover because they don’t care and just want to sit on the couch and shoot a virtual alien with a virtual gun.
But I agree with tokamak here: the sentiment is important. People are more invested when they feel they own a part of the thing. Whether that’s a character or the game or an account… something that is uniquely theirs that they’re responsible for. People got attached to tamagotchis even though they weren’t real.
Well, man is a collector. Gamer maybe even more so. I have enough games to play for one year straight even if I wouldn’t have to work. With all the simulations I have in addition it would even be open ended. But you got to have em all right?
I think offering an ingame-service, which is specifically related to that game would be lucrative, if used often enough. I am thinking about a system, which let’s teams or even just players (1v1 comes to mind) play each other for money. The potential benefit for SD would be to offer this service as a secure transaction service, which is trustable and immune to counterfeiting, but in turn demand a certain percentage of money for each game. It would work like this: two teams transform real money to ingame-currency (this service is totally free and at no cost for the teams). Then the teams can make a deal about how much ingame-currency they want to play for. Then the match is done, and when there is a winner, SD will profit X% of the pot.
It would be especially nice, since SD would offer this service for their own game and would count as a definite, trustable and reliable source for player/team money stuff. The players on the other hand have the possibility to get rich = win-win situation.
Now if that is not a potentially lucrative business for both sides, then i don’t know 
[QUOTE=acQu;418489]I think offering an ingame-service, which is specifically related to that game would be lucrative, if used often enough. I am thinking about a system, which let’s teams or even just players (1v1 comes to mind) play each other for money. The potential benefit for SD would be to offer this service as a secure transaction service, which is trustable and immune to counterfeiting, but in turn demand a certain percentage of money for each game. It would work like this: two teams transform real money to ingame-currency (this service is totally free and at no cost for the teams). Then the teams can make a deal about how much ingame-currency they want to play for. Then the match is done, and when there is a winner, SD will profit X% of the pot.
It would be especially nice, since SD would offer this service for their own game and would count as a definite, trustable and reliable source for player/team money stuff. The players on the other hand have the possibility to get rich = win-win situation.
Now if that is not a potentially lucrative business for both sides, then i don’t know :)[/QUOTE]
There can be a lot of legal issues involved with services that allow players to play for money, you have to be very careful about gambling laws etc. Tournaments for money in the traditional e-sports sense is one thing, wagers on specific matches between teams is something far more scary for us though.
Hm, the only issue i can think of is governments wanting a piece of the pie. Aren’t there already international betting services, e.g. for football ? I mean this is about the same business model imo, so how do they come along.
Although i agree, better be safe. But this service would be damn attractive for me, and i think for others too
[QUOTE=acQu;418600]Hm, the only issue i can think of is governments wanting a piece of the pie. Aren’t there already international betting services, e.g. for football ? I mean this is about the same business model imo, so how do they come along.
Although i agree, better be safe. But this service would be damn attractive for me, and i think for others too :)[/QUOTE]
You’ve got to deal with cross border stuff to start with since this will be an international game and I doubt SD will have individual sales points in each representative country.
Then there are a lot of laws governing whether something is a game of chance or a game of skill and varying legalities about that.
Then there are all sorts of protections and guarantees that must be provided.
There’s a reason most betting places / gambling places are specialised into betting / gambling. It’s a lot of work to keep everything legal and maintain the required permits etc.
Relevant to gambling: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/coder-charged-for-gambling-software/
Interesting article. Hm, seems far more dangerous than i thought. This little comment here, after all, made me think: “Money leaving the US, ending up in other countries. Gotta protect them dollars!”.
But basically gambling is a form of trading, money goes from A to B. Taxing that seems only a part of the problem as to why gambling is persecuted so hard. I doubt they are so strict on this only because of ethical reasons.
Well then, was just an idea
Different set of legalities, but even then Blizzard has separated the real money AH into regions to make sure it’s meeting local legal requirements.
Simple sales are a much more straightforward thing legally speaking. Generally the seller has to pay sales taxes / VAT locally as per rules in his locality. Any other weirdness is usually handled by the buyer (import duties and whatnot, not that that applies to virtual goods I believe). And currency conversions are normally handled by the bank (who may skim a little for profit).
Summary: gambling and auction housing are tricky (gambling more so than AHs) and sales are relatively simple.
EDIT: Trading between players is beyond legal issues I believe. As long as they’re not trading things for money.
[QUOTE=zenstar;418829]Different set of legalities, but even then Blizzard has separated the real money AH into regions to make sure it’s meeting local legal requirements.
Simple sales are a much more straightforward thing legally speaking. Generally the seller has to pay sales taxes / VAT locally as per rules in his locality. Any other weirdness is usually handled by the buyer (import duties and whatnot, not that that applies to virtual goods I believe). And currency conversions are normally handled by the bank (who may skim a little for profit).
Summary: gambling and auction housing are tricky (gambling more so than AHs) and sales are relatively simple.
EDIT: Trading between players is beyond legal issues I believe. As long as they’re not trading things for money.[/QUOTE]
Yep, trading can also be equally scary. I can’t recall where I heard or read it, but I know I’ve been ‘told’ in the past that Blizzard is not far off being the equivalent of a bank in terms of the rules and regulations it has to stick to. The National Bank of Azeroth 
Well with the RMAH in D3 you can make money selling things and then buy more WoW time with it or make withdraws into your paypal account (iirc). I’m not surprised they’re basically a banking institution 
I wonder if their big wigs also get bankers bonuses?
If only they hadn’t overinflated the price of a hut in Orgrimmar we wouldn’t be in a recession!!! shakes fist My gold is worth less and less every expansion! At this rate my troll shaman is never going to be able to retire.