Following on last weeks announcement from Massive regarding their technology for updating ads placed within networked games, a whole slew of sources have turned the meme into a reality. Nielsen and Chrysler have tossed into the ring their findings from a Jeep/Tony Hawk game scenario
Of the male gamers who participated in the study, about 40 percent said that in-game ads made a game more appealing, and made them more inclined to buy the advertised product. Similarly, a solid two-thirds majority of active gamers reported that in-game advertising made a game more realistic, while nearly three in 10 noted that advertising in video games was more memorable than traditional television advertising. What is more, more than one-third of participants agreed that in-game ad were more effective if they assist a game player in reaching a particular objective. This finding is consistent with the higher awareness, recall and purchase interest generated by high-interactive brands.
Do we really find games more realistic if ads are placed within the virtual environment? And what of the other 60%- did they believe in-game ads made a game less appealing? We have to wonder.
1. i think that putting adds in video games is ok if you put it in the right game. like splintercell, tony hawk,need for speed underground,the sims, and other modern games. but i also feel that adds in games like call of duty, Medal of honor,and age of empires, would be misplaced and there for make the game ugly. after all who wants to be fighting a battle in the midevil time period and come across the enemies fortess named "pepsi castle". adds must be kept in games in which they fit.
Posted at 6:15AM on Dec 19th 2005 by NIGHTCRAWLER