|
my beef is this:
Traditionally advertising is used to provide a service at an either free or low rate. FM radio is free, websites are free, and TV is free (the content, not the service). Magazines and newspapers are cheap.
Video games, however, are neither free nor cheap. A game with advertisements is the same price as one without. But surely the advertisements are giving money to the companies putting work into games. So where is the break for the consumer? It's not there! In video games, advertisements are just a means to either cover costs or generate a little extra revenue, but the consumer sees none of this benefit.
But like you said, Donnie, so far they aren't intrusive. So far we don't have to take involuntary breaks to see some in-game advertisement. The next level is putting advertisements on loading screens, which would raise questions as to whether the loading screens actually are necessary for loading the game or if they are a little stretched to keep that advertisement in your face for a few more seconds. At this point I think the consumer definitely should see a break in the normal price tag of games. As it is now, it's not a huge deal but it is kinda scummy.
It's already started, so it's just a matter of time until we really start seeing hardcore advertising in games, and when that happens we damn well better start seeing games for at most $40.
Advertising also affects the credibility of gaming as an art form. In a game like Battlefield 2142, I imaging it doesn't totally kill the mood, but it does somewhat detract from the futuristic battlefield style. Games cover pretty much all of the arts: visual, audio, writing, and even immersion, a realm that traditional art can't really get down easily. Putting advertisements in games definitely brings the notch down a little bit.
|