adverts on billboards in Pure or other games. good? bad?

[Dogg Thang]

[note by Lance: this is a discussion that developed into something completely offtopic in the thread about the Gamma download content of Pure. it was noted that it appears that it will be possible to insert any content into billboards in Pure, an ability that perhaps will be limited only to the developers, not the gameplayers. the following is the discussion of the consequences of this possibility.]:

That wouldn't really be an issue if you just had whatever you wanted in your own personal copy. Distributing copyrighted material would be an issue but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I mean, many of us are okay with graphics and would love to make out own logo for a billboard. If there is coding, as Egg was saying, to choose the billboards by colour then there is a limit to how much you could spoil the look.

Something has occurred to me though. Studio Liverpool/Sony with the Edge article and that Japanese footage seem to be pushing the ability to customise tracks as a feature. So far, there has been no mention of us being able to do that ourselves (which is why I had asked but haven't yet had an answer). So I was thinking - why push it as a feature in the media and not have it available to customers (unless as I said, it might be available in the future)?

The obvious answer that I can see is that Sony intend to sell advertising space in our Wipeout Pure.

Download a new track, get a godawful McDonalds billboard with it or some such ad which Sony can implement but the end user has no control over. Now, I'm biased probably because I hate such ads in real life and it would bug me no end to see such ads in Pure but that seems to me to be the only reason that they are publicising the ability to change billboards without allowing the user to do it.

Of course I would love Colin to tell me I'm wrong! I'm being paranoid, right?

[Concept]

I doubt the graphic designers would be best pleased about that, especially considering they supposedly weren't too pleased with the Hacker Skin (due to it not being intentional).

Maybe the billboard editing system will be used for promotional use, although I do recall it being stated there will be some available for users to download at some point.

[Sven]

Download a new track, get a godawful McDonalds billboard with it or some such ad which Sony can implement but the end user has no control over.Even that wouldn't be as bad as NFSU2 with that damn cingular logo!

[Egg]

Then again ... 2097/XL was full of Red Bull sponsorship. At least the Euro version was; maybe our American allies can correct me if it was changed for the XL verson.

BTW --- users wouldn't be able to add animated billboards, only static ones. The animated stuff was done via our own exporter software.

[Concept]

True. You can add that to Psygnosis in-house adverisements for the likes of Tenka too.

Personally though, McDonald's adverts (or the cultural equivalent) would naff the look of Pure up something rotten though if they were enforced. It'd also be a step forward for the PSP's wireless/download capabilities that probably wouldn't be appreciated by many users.

Make no mistake though, once high speed net access is fully converged into the majority of games, it's (unfortunate) common sense that advertising space is going to be used more and more in games to generate further sources of revenue.

I just hope it isn't an obnoxious form of advertising... say for example an advert for a Britney Spears track being displayed in a hisotrical RTS would be a really, really bad move. It would shatter the immersion of the time period said game may be trying to express.

There's all sorts of niggly implications like that which have to be weighed up in the integration of online videogaming advertising, which force the ethical identity of a title into conflict with the financial gains/musts that may possibly be derived from use of adverts.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, it's your last sentence Concept where things get tricky.

And, yes, 2097 had Red Bull plastered all over it. I don't think that means that the door is wide open. I actually had no problem with the Psygnosis ads in WO1 (Crazy Ivan etc) in the same way that I don't have a problem with the record labels in Pure - because the people involved were an integral part of the process and all contributed greatly to the end product. It's a creative trade-off and I realise that.

Buuut...when that door is opened a little wider, things can take a turn for the disgusting. We've seen it in movies. I never went to see Castaway, for example, because even the trailer played out like a FedEx ad. And I Robot and Men in Black 2, well they weren't great films anyway, but to take breaks out of the story for their product placement is just vile. The flip-side of that is that big projects need money to be made and so a certain degree of sponsership, if implimented carefully and withing the creative framework of that product, can be okay.

But, like Concept said in his last line - it has many implications, there are very fine lines to be crossed and it can be as off-putting as it is financially rewarding. These, of course, are just my own personal opinion by the way - I do remember on the Fusion message boards ages ago people saying they actually wanted Red Bull ads back. So what do I know?!

By the way, I should add a little of where I'm coming from in this - I don't make games. However, I do face the exact dilemmas that I'm talking about as I'm a director. I direct (mostly) animated projects, cartoons, short films and even ads. Certain 'sponserships' have been suggested more than once. Working in ads gives you a clear picture of the mindset of advertisers and, with some exceptions of course, sometimes it's not pretty.

[infoxicated]

So, Egg, are you neither confirming nor denying the idea that advertising space in WO Pure might be sold? :wink:
You know, I believe it's questions like this on forums that have most game developers keeping well away.

[Dogg Thang]

Quite possibly, Infoxicated. Consider the question withdrawn.

[Colin Berry]

Here is the thing

Lets forget Wipeout Pure for the minute and talk hypothetically

a company intends to release extra content for a 3rd person shooter for free

to cover the cost to the company of making the extra content, they sell advertising space in the game

would you rather have the extra content and some adverts
or no extra content
or pay for the content - baring in mind you wouldnt just be paying for the content but also for the cost of setting up and maintening the purchasing functionality side of things

Now with Pure, I've no idea what the plan is, really I havent, its not my area and I'm concentrating on other stuff, but you cant just say gah we dont want mcdonalds adverts, without considering all the options if you see what I mean.

[Dogg Thang]

Interesting question Colin and a very valid one. Honestly, for me, to answer the exact question you have asked - I would rather pay for the content. I do realise that's just me. But the expansion system for, say, PC games seems to work pretty well in my opinion. A game in made, bought, and an expansion is developed bearing in mind that much of the development costs were covered the first time around as in graphics engines etc.

Where the added content becomes a problem in my mind (totally bearing in mind that this would not be down to you or your team!) is where content is deliberately held back in development.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it was SCEA's plan to sell ad space in Pure in the added content. It has been said that much of the added content is complete and, in some cases, it was decided that certain tracks would be held back as downloadable content. Then Sony sell the ad space. In this scenario, the advertising is not paying for the development of extra content as that has already been budgeted for. In this scenario, content is being removed (or at least held back) from the consumers in an attempt to generate extra revenue.

The other issue which has been brought up (and again, I realise this would not be down to the WO team) is that when advertising in games becomes a standard feature, certain aspects of that game will be tailored to the advertisers. For example, I would hate to think that the look of Pure and the placement of the billboards was there because Sony wanted to use it for advertising. Creatively that is a world away from your team placing those billboards there because your art department thought they looked great there. Know what I mean? By the way this is all hypothetical! Like I was saying in an earlier post, I'm a director and have had such requests myself.

But, yes, if you're looking for a simple answer to your question - I have no problem paying for content.

Edit: Sorry Colin, I'm now realised I should have stuck to your hypothetical example of a shooter or some such. Actually that's relevant to part of what I was saying as I get the distinct impression that Halo 2 was released unfinished. To charge for the game and then charge again for it to be finished (whether by paying for the extras or through advertising) would seem a little cheeky to me.

[Purist]

Chaps (and chapesess?) arn't we getting slightly away from the original title of the thread? :cry:

:?: Surley I'm not the only one in the world with the GAMMA league

[Dogg Thang]

Of course, if it could be controlled, the other possibility would be to offer both 'free downloads with ads' and 'pay-to-download ad-free' content. In a way that would be similar to the choices we have with tv dvds at the moment though the distribution method would be different. I could watch a show on tv for 'free' where the ads are paying for the show or alternatively I could buy the season on dvd and watch it ad-free. The fact that some shows are doing so well on dvd makes this is a financially sustainable way of getting shows out there.

Oh and Purist, I think you are the only one here with the Gamma download! That's why we're all jealous :D

[Mobius]

Sorry purist, but going back to the advertising. If sony know pure is an asset, (Going even furter off, on amazon.com someone gave it one star saying it is just a repeat of and old series then goes to say need for speed: rivals is better - duh...speck-plank, honestly.)

Anyway, if sony know it is an asset, why would they kill it off with macdonalds adverts. I understand that they need to cover costs sometimes but don't sony have enough style to pick a more suitable company? Red bull in 2097 i thought was pretty cool - as it went with the theme of wipeout anyway (and the whole racing scene too).

For example, they could advertise another kind of futuristic thing. But not Chavvy macdonalds.

Oh BTW
Did anyone try and eat 2 meals with the vouchers through the post...? Never again...

[Lance]

.
i would rather pay for the content. being hit by tasteless crap, or even tasteful crap, that is there for the benefit of someone other than me, ruins the experience of the game [and movie, and anything]. here i am, playing something i have paid for, and i am stiLL getting adverts. that was the one failing of 2097/XL, those damned Red Bull ads. it's the same as my telephone service, which i pay for, getting used by companies trying to sell me something. they're using my line, my time, and making me pay for it! i want to pay for a game and enjoy it. ads take away from the enjoyment. the only exception i've found is the Psygnosis and Namco adverts for their other games. somehow they seem to fit, and they're for something i'd like to have. to give verisimilitude to the game background, it is almost required to have billboards, but they should be for fantasy companies and products of the game's own world, not real companies trying to sell me low-quality hamburgers. this is most especially true for any game set in some 'reality' other than our own.
.

[Dogg Thang]

Heh, as I seem to have started the whole McDonalds thing I really should point out that I just threw that out as an example. Nowhere has anywhere or anyone said that they'll be advertising in Pure - I was simply speculating (don't want to be the cause of any net rumours!).

But yeah, I agree with you Lance.

[lunar]

Its all hypothetical. I`m quite confident Sony wouldn`t want to spoil the wipeout brand with innapropriate sponsorship such as MacDonalds, or any other brand/product which would destroy the "suspension of disbelief" in the game. On the positive side,such a sponsorship deal would provide a rare opportunity to fire 1000 tonnes of TNT right up Ronald MacDonald`s golden arches, as in real life this kind of activity is actually frowned upon.

I believe the biggest problem with advertising in games, films or dvds is when you feel you are being forced to put up with marketing messages, but these do not add value to the product. For instance, quite a few kids DVDs I`ve seen start with previews of upcoming features, which cannot be skipped. Having purchased a legal DVD, the buyer has a right, surely, to choose what he or she wants to watch. People watching these films don`t necessarily want to see the previews, and their presence doesn`t add value - they don`t reduce the cost of the product in any way or enable it to exist. These “promotions” take away your freedom of choice, forcing you to spend time doing something you didn`t choose to do - in order to watch something you have paid for already. In marketing circles I believe this is technically termed as "taking the piss". Even five year olds can sense when it is happening.

Advertising in games is unnecessary, I think. If they`re good enough people will pay for them and pay for extra content, though that`s another issue in itself. Once you create an expectation that games may contain advertising you`ll eventually reach a point where it won`t be used to reduce the cost of games or provide extra content - it will be used to provide extra revenue and gamers will just have to put up with it. Game producers may claim that this sponsorship allows them to provide extra content, but how can we know that this is true? Knowing that we can`t challenge them, some publishers will be tempted to exploit consumers as much as they feel they can get away with.

The point is that its impossible to say how much should have been in the game to start with, if it wasn`t for the advertising. The same dilemma applies to charging for bonus content. Its entirely up to the publisher to decide what is bonus and what isn`t, and there will always be a temptation to put less in to start with, then charge for the rest. I think there can be a reasonable threshold at which the free stuff stops and charging begins, and if we don`t allow the possibility of that we could conceivably miss out. After all SL can`t pay their staff to go on making free downloadable wipeout content ad infinitum. Infact I think they`re being very generous with what they are offering - so there goes my anti-corporate cynicism..... at least in this case.

[TMoney]

When I bought Wipeout Pure in the US it had 'downloadable content' as one of it's features on the box.

If you , the developer/publisher/whatever, decide you want this to be a selling feature of the game - guess what? I should expect it as part of the 40w/tax I shelled out for it and that's it unless you mention right then and there otherwise.

If content needs to be supported by in-game ads - so be it. Under the following conditions :

- It doesn't detract from the "feel"/art direction of the game.
- It doesn't delay in any way the game experience.

If at any point I have to pay for Wipeout downloads after this whole time in gaming news websites it was said to be free and there were no mention of charges on the box, I'm going to be PISSED.

[Dogg Thang]

TMoney, you bring up an excellent point - what are we paying for? As you have rightly pointed out, the additional content has been a selling point of the game. So, although I would be more than willing to pay for expansions etc, the additional content in Pure should be considered to be part of the asking price. We have already paid for it in a sense.

This, in my opinion, also makes sense for Sony. Why? Because it allowed them to get the game out for launch.

The promise of the additional content was similar to the Early Bird Star Wars packs in a sense. That was way back when they started making Star Wars figures. They couldn't produce them fast enough, wouldn't have had them out for Christmas and so, instead, offered emtpy boxes with coupons for the figures when they were available.

Now, with Pure, we got so much more than empty boxes! We got a fantastic game. But part of the deal was that there would be more to come. So who pays for that additional content? By buying the game, we already have in a sense. It works for Sony with regards to cash flow too. This of course won't work for every game but it did make sense for Pure to get it out for launch.

To a large extent though, I feel the perception of extra content being 'free' is incorrect. We are paying for it one way or another. Otherwise, as Lunar pointed out, there would not be a dev team working on it.

[TMoney]

Agreed.

It isn't free.

We paid for it already when we bought the game.

[Chill]

:?
Hey guys, Sony is smarter than this. They could get our attention by saying we pay for it or nothing will come. For example, what if everyone already has the game? :roll: Then what additional content would come? :wink:

[lunar]

In the literal sense it is free, in that it will not cost anything to download and install initial extra content on the PSP. But how much content you have paid for already really is a grey area.

To an extent it is correct to say that you`ve paid for it already, but there`s nothing on the Wipeout Pure box which says exactly how much downloadable content is included in the price, and exactly how much you`ve paid for already. Its unreasonable of a consumer to expect lifetime new content for Wipeout Pure included in the original purchase price, there`s certainly no precedent or justification for such an expectation, and therefore consumers must accept that there exists a point at which Sony can reasonably stop supplying extra content at no additional cost. Sony`s idea of where this point lies might be different to the consumer`s, but nevertheless this point does exist. At the moment we have been promised a lot without extra charge, which, added to the original game, represents excellent value for money in my opinion. At some point Sony will quite sensibly stop providing it without additional cost, or charge money for it, or bring out a new game. When this point has been reached I would personally prefer everything to be out in the open and be given the opportunity to pay a reasonable amount of money for extra content than put up with advertising, for reasons I described before, but whether you would accept advertising or not really is just a matter of opinion and personal preference.

[TMoney]

Here's what was on the web before the release.

-6 months of content
-One package a month
-Free

If it ends up deviating from that - well that's just BS.

I have an Xbox - - let me just pick up my Halo 2 box here... ah here it is

Now gather 'round children as I read you a story I found on the back of this box.

"
Xbox Live System Requirements
-High Speed Internet Service
-Ethernet Cable
-Subscription to Xbox Live Service (sold seperately)
... blah blah
"

So I guess that means that the "Content Download" and "Multiplayer" features indicated elsewhere on the box which clearly indicate an Xbox Live account require me to BUY said account..... wow.

That's how it's done folks.

So if Sony charges, it's BS.

[mid]

"Free" extra content which is being paid for by sticking adverts on the hypothetical new courses = fine and dandy; if the adverts offend you don't use the extra content.

"Free" extra content which is being paid for by sticking adverts in the base game that weren't there before = Bad and/or Wrong.

That's where I'd draw the line, anyway.

[lunar]

T-Money, I haven`t seen the webpage you`re talking about, but surely the "free" part of:

-6 months of content
-One package a month
-Free

applies to that first 6 months of content. After that it might still be “free”, but we will have to wait and see. I don`t see any reason to leap to a claim that charging for add-on content at any time is wrong in principle, though I`m not sure if that`s what you meant in the last line of your post. The box and manual of Wipeout Pure leaves all options open for Sony as far as I can tell. It doesn`t commit them to anything in terms of downloadable content.

We already know that Sony will be providing an amount of downloadable content at no extra cost, but they won`t go on making new content forever on the basis that in buying the game we`re entitled to it. There`s nothing on the box or in the manual for the game which suggests they should do so or that we have bought such rights. At some point they might decide they`ve given value for money, and any further content should be paid for. If we say they can never charge for content then we may be killing the possibility of getting extra content at some point in the future. If consumers insist on getting it at no extra charge they might not get it at all. That doesn`t serve anyone`s interests.

Similarly, if we say “never” to advertising we might also be depriving ourselves. Its not ideal but if it extends the life of the game we can put up with it. I think Mid`s distinction above is quite useful in deciding what advertising would be acceptable.

[perfecide]

I just found this interesting link: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=5388

More Red Bull, in more games.

[TMoney]

Lunar, if they don't mention they're going to charge you - they shouldn't. End of story.

It's pretty ridiculous when Xbox Live, from MICROSOFT of all people, is going to be more open and honest about charging for content than Sony is, if that happens.

If possible charges were mentioned on the box, then I'd be fine with it. They weren't, so I'm not.

[Sven]

Personally, I'd rather have ads that pay for something if it came down to that, so long as they aren't as annoying as popups and whatnot...Like, I'd be fine with having McDonald's billboards in Wipeout, because it's not hard to ignore them at 500mph.

P.S. When I saw Red Bull everywhere in Wipeout XL, I just thought it was a development company or something, lol! I was so young and naïve...

[Seek100]

McDonalds must die and burn in hell; I'd much, much rather pay for the content than have adverts from companies like McChav in the game, if it comes down to that that is.

[Chill]

McDonald's, in that time era... :lol: . At least Red Bull is an athlete's drink, but McDonald's!!! :lol: If so, they would at least need to convert the McDonald's logo look a bit. The M would get kinda old, if you ask me. 8) I agree with Seek, these kind of adverts don't mix in with Wipeout, come on, we're racing on these every day!! Sooner or later, we'd see McDonald's and think about Wipeout. :roll: I can understand Red Bull a lot better than McDonald's, ya, eat a blended Big Mac before your race. :lol:

[Lance]

.
why would the logo need to change? McDonald's has used that logo for 50 years already. Daimler has used the three-pointed star on its cars for nearing a century. traditional identity is a big deal. Ford must be nearly a century into the use of the blue oval with the Ford name in that same script that they have always used
.

[Chill]

Ya, I guess your right. I just thought it'd mix in better with the futuristic atmosphere. :wink:

[eLhabib]

well but then the whole point in having a McDonalds billboard in the game would be lost, if nobody resembles the McDonalds logo as such. These kind of logos will never change their main appearance, they may adjust their color scheme slightly or ad some effect to it (like the slight 3D effect the M has now, suggested by two different yellows, very subtle), but that's about all that's gonna change.

[lunar]

That`s true. They will never change logos under any circumstances.

T-Money - Maybe it would be better if they had said that at some point in the future they might decide to charge for game upgrades, but if they haven`t done so, possibly having not decided their own strategy yet, I don`t see why we should refuse to pay ever, and possibly deprive ourselves of extra wipeout content in the process. I suppose you`re saying that if all the planned content had been released, Sony saw a market of wipeout players for new tracks, but wanted to charge a few $ for the download, you would rather not have the content, no matter what it was, than pay for it. That`s up to you, but its a personal decision.

I would apply something like Mid`s advertising distinction to paying for content:

- If I felt I was paying for content that should have been part of the original game I would say no way.
- If I felt I was paying for extra content that was never part of the original game and which I wouldn`t get any other way - fine. I don`t see any reason to stubbornly rule out this second option just because they left things a bit vague, compared to Microsoft, on the Pure box/manual. Just like we`re not going to buy stuff if we feel we`re buying it twice, Sony are not going to work on wipeout if they feel they`re working for nothing - which might mean the end of a game which could have developed further instead.

Perhaps in future it should state clearly on boxes how much downloadable content you get for the purchase price - otherwise publishers will be accused of excessive charging or advertising - i.e. getting paid twice for the same job. I don`t think this would be the case in Wipeout Pure, but clear statement of what you`re buying in the first instance would definitely be advisable if downloading upgrades for games becomes common and companies want to charge for it.

Payment/Advertising, if handled fairly by publishers, can present a good opportunity to players as well as to publishers themselves, increasing the shelf life of our favourite games. However after reading the article Perfecide posted I find the idea of advertising in games even more worrying. There`s no discussion of value for customers in there - just talk of how companies can make more money. This is how they operate. Like a guest who outstays his welcome advertising will seem quite harmless at first, but then it`ll start to take over the house. Once you let that particular wolf through the door you can`t get him out again.

[Chill]

I think you've explained everything really well, lunar. But once more products compete for this, it could get crazy. It would begin bringing the consumer market in closer with games, which shouldn't happen. You see a billboard: $1 burgers at your friendly McDonalds. 'I'm lovin' it.' Then... Sun Lotion, your protection from the harsh atmosphere. Would you wan't all of this written all over Halo, or Resident Evil? Up all bright, with no blood or any changes to mix it in better with the atmosphere... you're losing the feeling of atmosphere when coming across these. You'd at least add in a bit of blood or pale-like look over the poster to give it that Resident Evil/Silent Hill like feeling, but please, nothing to far out their. :roll:

[lunar]

it occurred to me that there`s advertising in Wipeout Pure already, of course. What`s the Medievil ship other than an advert for another Sony product? Where exactly does this ship fit into the AG Racing scene, 2197? Allowing it to compete as an AI ship in tournaments really has a negative effect on the realism of the game. Its a shame to create realistic teams and then put in obvious fake ones like that, in an act of obvious internal product placement with little regard for the rest of the game. It puts a lot of strain on the suspension of disbelief, which is an important part of the game "world." This world is carefully built up in the game and with all the wipeout "back-story", and then this cartoon F-Zero monster is inserted in, which makes no sense.

It would have been okay if the thing didn`t compete in tournaments and was only a user-ship, like the Zone team. It doesn`t spoil the game for me - that would be an extreme over-reaction - but I think it was a mistake to let it replace the "real" teams in tournaments.

[Sausehuhn]

What?! The Medievil ship is not just an user-ship?! It's with you on the track like all the other ships?
Er... why? There's no history, no personality for this ship. You're totally right, it's just a ship that advertises another game.
Is there an option to turn that off? I think it's really better if you've got 2 ships of the same team on the track than this ship!
Is it the same with the zone ship?

Oh, man, I thought these/this ships/ship were/was only available for the user of the game :roll:

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, once it's unlocked it works as a competing team and I totally agree with Lunar on this.

[Chill]

Sorry if this question sounds dumb, but, erm, what is the Medievil ship advertising anyway? :pirate

[Sausehuhn]

Er...maybe the game Medievil?!?!? :dizzy

[TMoney]

[this post has been edited to remove flaming sarcasm. the removed portion contains a valid point, but should be restated with more reason and less heat.]

This isn't anything 'new' guys. New for PSP maybe but Sony is a pretty big company and they should know what they're doing at this point. Not being 'sure' before release isn't an excuse either. If you plan on charging for something you advertise as a selling feature for crying out loud, then SAY SO right then and there or forget it.

I'm not using that damn PSP keypad to punch in my credit card number, and I don't care what game it's for.

[lunar]

The box has no mention of downloadable content. The manual simply says it is offered and refers you to the website for more information. Possibly they should be more explicit about the chance of future charges if they are planning them, but then if they haven`t decided to charge they won`t mention it anyway - from their point of view why complicate things? Any company would behave that way, and I wouldn`t let such a thing become a major point of principle and let it spoil my fun if I was being offered a fair deal for an upgrade pack. Wipeout Pure is just computer software, and this is often upgraded for a charge. There`s no legal reason why they can`t charge for content at some point in the future, and no reason why such offers can`t, hypothetically, be value for money. I can`t see why you would prefer to have no further content than pay for it, under any circumstances, just because the box is vague, and when you`re already getting a great game with plenty of downloadable content included in the price, but its up to us to make our own choices.

[Lance]

.
agreed with TMoney that Sony had a long time to think about it before release; the conditions should be stated clearly on the gamebox and not changed once the game has been released. they could have said that there will definitely be a period of no-extra-cost downloads plus possible but not guaranteed extra-cost downloads beyond that. when it comes to laying out money for something, i prefer to have things definite rather than vaguely implied. i have no problem with an extra-cost download if i know beforehand that things will be that way. i can then make my judgement on whether i want to even make the initial purchase.
.

[Sausehuhn]

If the content must be payed it's not Studio Liverpool's plan, it's Sony it self I think.
The content is nearly finished (I mean Colin said this in another thread), but they cannot decide when to make it online, that's Sony's decision.

I don't know what I should think about all these things. The content is nearly completly available in Japan (and I think in the USA as well) when the PSP will be released in Europe. They do have all contents and we have to wait 6 month more?
So why buying the EU Version? Okay you can play multiplayer, but that's the only reason. Just the motherlanguage will be a nice small feature of the EU version (I'm sure you will be able to play it in French, English, German and some more).

By the way, do you think they had released a new WipEout if the PSP was never made? I mean is Pure really a game made because they wanted to make a new WipEout or just because a new console was going to be released and it was a good way to show the power of the console and because it's a kind of tradition to make a new WipEout for a new PlayStation system?

[Dogg Thang]

Why buy the EU version? Well why buy the EU version of any game? We usually have to wait longer - I don't see why you think that would be any different if you had to wait for downloadable content. Waiting longer for a game and waiting longer for the extra content is no different.

Fact is, Pure is being released 6 months later in the EU. Downloadable content doesn't change that. Dooming the rest of the world to wait for the content while SCEE messes up their PSP launch doesn't help that.

And nobody is saying that it is down to Studio Liverpool.

[Sausehuhn]

I just meant why waiting 6 months when I can get all the content with another version of the game a half year earlier...

And I've never said that somebody said that it is down to Liverpool. I just wanted to say it. Maybe someone thought that.
> Notice the differences between saying and thinking.

[Dogg Thang]

Unfortunately I don't get access to people's thoughts (yet). Yeah, I do agree with you about having to wait and that's one of the real problems with the PSP launch being so late - people who were guaranteed early adopters will simply have imported. Like I said in the downloadable content thread, I'm thinking of getting the jp version simply because there is no sign of the us content.

To continue what Lance and TMoney have said, Sony have quite a bit of online experience with SOE so it's not like they could simply claim they weren't aware of labelling procedures when it came to 'net use, extras etc. I don't see Sony actually charging customers for content any time soon with Pure (if ever).

Aside from simply getting advertising (which I don't see as 'free'), if the interviews are anything to go by, Pure is the flagship for PSP expansions and net downloads. Thinking short term, it would make little sense for Sony to have a dev team working on material they are going to give out for free. But, as has already been pointed out in this thread, they have cash flow coming in from Pure (and others) which is a nice position to be in - having sales come in as the game is still in development. This is if you subscribe to the 'we have already paid for the content by buying the game' camp. Far more importantly, Pure will get a lot of press for its extra content and Sony will use it as market research to see how the public responds to extras with the PSP. So long term, it makes sense.

Even if we never see an external ad in Pure (although I suspect we will), Sony can use the success and go to Pepsi and say 'Look at how great the downloadables were in Pure - 95% of owners downloaded all the content. That's x amount of people you can reach'. And then the marketing game billboards will kick into full swing I suspect.

The splitting into several spaced packs will also be part of this experiment, I'm sure. Say a company won't pay $250,000 or whatever for a billboard in a whole game. What if, for $150,000, you can have the billboard but only in the first expansion? So they pay their $150,000 knowing that expansion 2 will eventually come out replacing their billboard. So where Sony would make $250,000 for one ad, they can make $600,000 if they make four small expansion packs. So companies effectively rent the space.

Pure will be a great test for all of these ideas. By the way, I should again point out that this is purely speculation but it seems to make sense to me. So long term, if they never charge for Pure content and even never have a paid ad in there, Sony will still make their money from what they can prove with Pure as the testing ground.

[Brother Laz]

A scarier thought is that eventually games will be produced to suit the advertisers.

A track with a white/yellow/red color scheme and a track layout that looks like the golden arches in Pure2 would be the least of our worries. But the fact that they won't be able to place billboards in fantasy games [as opposed to techno-future games] may well be the end of fantasy games.

Then there won't be any more Medievil to worry about in Pure2. :cry:

This coincides nicely with the announcement by Sony that their next MMORPG will be in a futuristic setting. Apparently the fantasy MMORPG Everquest 2 isn't good enough for them. And advertising is the only reason I can imagine.

[perfecide]

A scarier thought is that eventually games will be produced to suit the advertisers.


It's happening already. The link I posted on the first page talks about a company that was formed for the "soul" reason of putting Ads in games.

[lunar]

I put this here because I didn`t want to go too off topic in the downloadable content thread....

Couldn`t the euro version of the game have an option to remove Medievil as an AI ship, or just have it as a user ship only. If the US/JP/Euro versions are incompatible in terms of saves and multiplayer, then there`s no reason not to give us this option - unless we have to have this flying advert whether we like it or not. I know SL made changes to F12004 between the original and platinum versions, so this sort of thing can be done. And if this did happen some USA Wipeout Purists might buy the Euro version too.

I think it should still be there as a user ship though, in the interests of making things equal for all players worldwide.

[Manic]

Commercials for actual companies isn't that bad actually, as long as you pick the right ones (NOT McDonalds). Also, I think it's good for the game developer since they can spend the cash on developing a better sequel to the game (and of course treating themselves for a job well done).

Also, I think medieval-style games will become more popular than ever in the future, since when everyone's practically living "Star Wars" no one will want to see a podracer simulator when you can just go out and race the damn things.

Also, in 2031 China, Japan and India will launch a joint program to preserve and promote domestic traditions, including culinary such. In 2035 this will have put the majority of McDonalds, Pizza Huts etc. in all east Asia out of business and by 2039 will spread to the rest of the world, starting with Indonesia, Australia and the middle east, eventually moving on across Europe. Finally, somwhere in the late 2040s, it'll hit Canada. In the end, only middle and southern America will have any "ordinary" fast food restaurants, and in many countries certain fast food chains and types of fast food will be outlawed as they are considered dangerous to the public health.

At least, that's what I hope.

(added 15:15 the 17th of May)
*repeatedly bangs head to the wall* I am a spammer! I am a spammer! I am a spammer!

[Lance]

.
''Commercials for actual companies isn't that bad actually, as long as you pick the right ones''

i hate commercials. they would be tolerable if the games they were in were free, but if i pay for a game, it should not have commercials in it. the only games i've seen where adverts did not bother me were the two Ridge Racer titles i own, which advertised only other NAMCO games, and which seemed to me to actually fit in the game and increased the tongue-in-cheek humour of RR
.

[Dogg Thang]

I totally agree, Lance. Completely 100% agree. On the Namco RR ad thing, it is weird that I don't mind fake ads at all (like some of the great GTA ones!) but as soon as real ads start creeping in I just have to question why I am paying to be advertised to and all of the motives of the companies are called into question.

To quote Bill Hicks - "You do a commercial, you’re off the artistic roll call forever. End of story"

[Sven]

I'm just a cheapskate.

EA is threatening to price next-gen games at $70. If they get paid advertising, and price them at $50 or $40, I'd be happier with that than a $70 with no ads. I can get 50% more games!

And there's always competition. If there's one game with less obtrusive ads, that will bode well for it, so I'll lean more toward that than something with annoying overlays.

But that's just me.

[Manic]

.
i hate commercials. they would be tolerable if the games they were in were free, but if i pay for a game, it should not have commercials in it. the only games i've seen where adverts did not bother me were the two Ridge Racer titles i own, which advertised only other NAMCO games, and which seemed to me to actually fit in the game and increased the tongue-in-cheek humour of RR
.

Yeah, but in a kind of sense the advertisements also give the game a nice "touch" which increases the feeling of the game. Companies always have advertised during large-scale sporting events and so on, and those events have always depended on private companies for support. This fits into the environment of Wipeout, as long as you blend it in among the game's advertisements, and gives you more of an environment to relate to, basically a sense of realism. I'm always up for realism, and I'm also always up for Red Bull for that matter...

Of course, you have to be picky when you choose what companies to advertise for. I for one do not beleive that e.g. McDonalds will remain for that long a time (obviously), and I don't think that many people do either. Hence, you should not put up their billboards in the game.

[Lance]

.
while it's true that trackside adverts have been a part of racing for a very long time, it isn't something i like.

something else i've always hated are the damned sponsor decals all over the cars in auto racing. they tend to destroy the visual beauty of what would otherwise be great-looking machines. the only example i can think of where sponsors did not muck up the looks occurred many many years ago with the Lotus 79 black with gold numbers and edge striping ''John Player Specials'' paint scheme. by my standards, the one and only example of a great-looking sponsored car. [even with that one, i would have preferred that Lotus use their own team colours] [yes, i'm an effing purist. sOmebody has to be against exploitative ugliness. :) ]

in any case, advertisers should not be affecting which ships are in the game. nor should adverts appear anywhere except as part of the scenery during the races. for instance, the Red Bull ads in 2097/XL are very intrusive, blasting you right in the eye on menu screens. there is no added realism given to the races by this
.

[Chill]

I just wanted to add in that when I first got Wipeout 3, I thought all the teams showing at the start were advertisements of companies that mabye worked on Wipeout 3 that I didn't know about, like in Europe or something, and I went with that thought for quite a while. It put so much of a cooler effect on the introduction, it was awesome!! Now I know they were just the teams, but I love just pretending that they were advertisements, it gives me a feeling of excitement for some reason. OK, that's all I wanted to say. :wink:

[Mobius]

Advertising must sometimes be good though.

Seeing as no-one has mentioned that Kappa were advertised throught Fusion means that half the time you dont notice...

[Rapier Racer]

Oh but I did notice and it made me cringe every time I saw it flash up on the billboard, bring back red bull anyday!

[Sven]

the only example i can think of where sponsors did not muck up the looks occurred many many years ago with the Lotus 79 black with gold numbers and edge striping ''John Player Specials'' paint scheme. by my standards, the one and only example of a great-looking sponsored car.Some LeMans cars aren't so bad. The Champion Audis looked all right, as do many others...F1 cars don't look so bad either.

NASCAR cars are just ugly, but they're ugly to begin with.

[Lion]

I played wipeout before red bull was available in my country
I'd never heard of it outside of the game at that point either (pre-internet for me)

when I first saw a dairy (general store/cornershop) selling it I thought some company had seen the branding in wipeout and decided to make a product that used the name and logos to capitalise on the mindshare
of course I bought some :P

now I know better obviously, but I still have a can in my hand and 2 more full cans on my desk beside me :P

[Egg]

Apparently most of the guys on 2097 had never heard of Red Bull, either. During development, they were supplied with fridges full of the stuff.
By the sound of it, no-one had a clue what effect over-consumption might have. Meanwhile, can after can is being thrown down the throats of an unsuspecting devteam.

Dozens of wide-eyed, juddery nights later, the game is finished and the team are gibbering, sleep-deprived maniacs.

So on reflection, you have Red Bull partly to thank for the promptness of WO 2097 :lol: :D :lol:

[yawnstretch]

I think advertisements in videogames have a bright future once companies recognise that poorly thought-out campaigns can result in mass-hatred of a brand. I think a feature of the coming generation will be brand-disloyalty. If you think association with sweat-shops is bad for Nike, just wait till you see what happens when an unskippable ad for washing powder appears in a videogame somewhere.

If game-ads are to be successful then they need to have the kind of attention movie-product placement has. See the reactions when movie-product placement goes too far and both movie and company are slated? With games it's even more sensitive. You have a highly critical audience with certain expectations. Subtley is the key for the gaming generation.

If you think we won't notice a tiny advertisement somewhere in a popular game - you're wrong. Just be clever! :twisted:

[Mobius]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/21/news_6126356.html

Havent read throught it yet - experts opinion on in-game ads.

[yawnstretch]

Interesting

[phoenixx]

Red Bull was something I could bear - it suited to racing. Kappa... mmmmmmmph.... Please beware of McDonalds or Burger King ads ... I would hate it... even at 500 mph... :bombhead

[Rapier Racer]

well if ads for places like mcdonalds and such get into games like wipeout, the least they could do would be to allow the player to blow the billboard in question to smitherines, rockets away!

[Lance]

.
now thAt's a cool idea. like Vigilante 8, where you could blow up EVerything.

though it would still be better to have no effing adverts at all, then there wouldn't be any frustration to make me want to blow up everything. i could just concentrate on the racing
.

[lunar]

I like the little ruse in that article about how "advertisers just might be doing gamers a favor." Like the wolf getting into the field won`t necessarily be bad news for the sheep. What a load of brown-nosing, money grabbing, self-justifying, press-release posing-as-journalism bs. I`d like to savage that report line by line, but I don`t suppose anyone would read it, and I haven`t got the energy. Thanks for posting it though, Mobius..... quite informative.