The Padlocked Pocketbook

[L.B. Jeffries]

@ Fenixius

No no, not a t-shirt with gamer crap on it, like real clothes. As in, buying the jacket you saw someone wearing in a game and not having anything gamer about it except that it's a cool jacket. Same goes for dresses, etc.

I would so buy a Tommy Vercetti hawaian t-shirt!

This infact is a rather cool idea, game companies could work together with professional fashing designers (not high fashion naturally) and release the new GTA or Final Fantasy (well, it would sell in Japan) brand alongside a new game.

The idea came to me a few years ago when I wanted a red leather jacket with a pill capsule on the back. Every time I'd google it, there'd be jackets with 'Akira' or some goofy picture of Tetsuo on it. That wasn't what I wanted, I didn't want to reference the anime. I wanted it because it was a badass jacket.

I'd take Travis Touchdown's jacket and a lot of the t-shirts in the game if they sold them.

 

[sammyfreak]

The idea came to me a few years ago when I wanted a red leather jacket with a pill capsule on the back. Every time I'd google it, there'd be jackets with 'Akira' or some goofy picture of Tetsuo on it. That wasn't what I wanted, I didn't want to reference the anime. I wanted it because it was a badass jacket.

I'd take Travis Touchdown's jacket and a lot of the t-shirts in the game if they sold them.

One problem with this is that currently only a few niche games have cool clothing that someone would consider wearing. But if the game is created with the clothing in mind it could work. Square Enix just released a RPG to the DS that contains alot of fashion stuff. If it was released on the PS3 and became a succes then clothing from it could sell for qutie alot.

Unfortunately most games dont have alot of people with normal clothing. Army of Two skullmasks? To snowboarders maybe. Mass Effect tights? No way. Gears of War bandanas? Actualy, people who liked the game might like them.

But ultimately it would only bring major profit to larger games.

That said i would give my soul for a Razputin helmet or Guybrush Threepwood sword (with inscription).

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

One problem with this is that currently only a few niche games have cool clothing that someone would consider wearing. But if the game is created with the clothing in mind it could work. Square Enix just released a RPG to the DS that contains alot of fashion stuff. If it was released on the PS3 and became a succes then clothing from it could sell for qutie alot.

Unfortunately most games dont have alot of people with normal clothing. Army of Two skullmasks? To snowboarders maybe. Mass Effect tights? No way. Gears of War bandanas? Actualy, people who liked the game might like them.

But ultimately it would only bring major profit to larger games.

That said i would give my soul for a Razputin helmet or Guybrush Threepwood sword (with inscription).

Lets not forget the poor cosplayers whose homemade outfits will no longer be able to compete with the mass-produced clothes. And those Final Fantasy costumes might be a bit tricky considering how much random crap is all over them.

Still, most major game companies hire fashion designers to design the outfits for games in the first place, it seems like all they'd have to do is say "Design something that obeys the laws of gravity and also looks cool" and there'd be potential.

 

[Cousin_IT]

problem with that is you dont see real cloths in games, you see a digital representation of them. It doesnt have the same appeal to a consumer & it doesnt have the same appeal to someone seeking to advertise their merchenise

Yet. As photo-realism improves, I could see this as a growing market. Still niche, but growing. Consider also that some stores are looking at ways to digitize their clothing, and then digitize the consumer, and let the consumer shop all day. Once you've got the product digitized in one setting, it won't be that hard to bring it over. Do I actually think this is ever going to happen? No. But, I'm not ready to write it off as completely as you.

Thats the whole problem, its not real. As photoshopped/digitally enhanced as what we see on TV/movies is today, it can still be passed off as real & used to make people buy into it. Companies will pay to have their products used in order for them to be able to reap the benefits of being connected with the film. Thats why when, for example, a film like Memoirs of a Geisha came out, Max Factor ran a pretty heavy ad campaign tying their Masterpiece Mascara to the film & that by extention; if you buy their product you too can look as beautiful as Sayuri.

Simularly, games do not have the franchise appeal to advertsiers that movies have. When Bond uses an Audi car or Moterola phone; advertisers can (& do) say "be like Bond, buy our product." Games do not have that kind of appeal, indeed they often rely on this very same marketing principle to sell themselves ("watch the movie, now play the game").

Advertisers get alot for their money when it comes to placing their products in movies. They get the movie. They get to advertise that their product was in the movie. They get to attach their product to famous (& often fashion followed/trend settting) actors who are visibly seen sporting their product. You do not have this with games. All Advertisers get for their investment is a digital recreation of their product that often is hard to distinguish without looking very out of place. The only time advertisment is generally used is when it fits in to the atmosphere of the game. Seeing Pepsi placards in a FIFA game is fine. Logos on the side of racecars makes sense. But more often than not these are there because the publishers paid for them, so they could increase the realism of their game (eg. Racing Games generally have to pay to use cars names in their games, not the other way round).

Advertisment therefore is not an option for generating significant alternate sources of revanue for a long time yet. Maybe it will when games have a much broader mass appeal & social acceptence, but that is a long way off yet.

As for games using their own materiel to sell as advertising; if it wasnt such a niche appeal it would be a potential source of extra revanue. As it is, very few games have a unique & marketable collection of potential products. Cloths generally are made to look generic, like cheap designer imitations (since they cant afford to pay for the license to use real products). Die hard fans are willing to buy, for example, replica weapons or a clothing pattern designs. But where is the fiancial incentive to go through the rigmarole of pattenting, designing, & organising the production of something that will likely only sell in the low thousands & generate a very minimal profit at best?

Now, like you say L.B.J some games contain marketable products which might be relatively popular. However, the chances of a publisher/developer being able to negotiate a good deal with a third party producer (which is what most movie publishing houses use to produce tie-in merchendise) are slim because, as Ive said, the percieved market appeal of said products are very niche. The costs involved for a company to do it themselves mean that unless they find a philosophers stone, they will lose money trying to do it.

Consequently advertising & developing their own line of product is, currently, not an option the industry as a whole can move into to create a significant alternative avenue for profit. Maybe that will change, but change in regards to this article is irrelavent since its concerned with what the industry can exploit now, not in 10+ years.

 

[Royas]

I have a real problem with the idea of charging for demos. A demo isn't a product, it's an advertisement, like a TV commercial for McDonalds. It's made to promote the upcoming game. Charging for it separately, rather than considering it part of the overhead, would be like being charged by a local dry cleaner to see their billboard. Ideally, a demo will add to the revenue stream, but by persuading people to buy the game, not by being sold itself. I'm kinda neutral on the Spore demo, at least it has some functionality beyond just being a demo. I'm still not going to buy it.

The idea of charging for patches, though, is absolutely obscene. Patches are most often produced to fix bugs and errors. Any company that starts to charge me to fix their screw ups will soon be looking for a new customer, because I won't be buying from them any longer. It the seller made a mistake in the game, they are ethically obligated to fix it, period.

I think there are too many parallels being drawn between games and movies, and I'm not sure the comparison is appropriate. These are two different industries, and they are going to need two different business and revenue models. Trying to make the gaming industry act like the movies is a mistake, IMO.

 

[Fenixius]

@Royas
Patches - You're absolutely right. Downloadable content, however, even if presented in patch form, is another story.

Parallels with Movie Industry - You're right, it's not a great parallel. But it's about the closest one we can find, don't you think? And if there's nothing to parallel... then we're actually going to have to be inventive. And noone wants that :\

 

[The Franco]

Long story short: this must be why for every Psychonauts released there exists a gross of Gun Battle Slapfight's because publishers don't want to take chances. Here's a little tidbit from the Double Fine site about why Psychonauts was never released for the Gamecube that originally tipped me off to this phenomena:

Double Fine would love to make something for Nintendo's fine machine, but it's not up to us. It's the publisher's money, so they get to decide what platform to invest in. In other words, IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!

 

[sammyfreak]

Another thought regarding videogame clothing. Maybe the best solution for that isent that gaming companies individualy produce the cloths. Lets say a company called "Gamecloths" is founded. They make deals with companies who want their digital cloths sold as real stuff. Gamecloths gets to sell "Official Tommy Vercetti hawaian shirt" and Rockstar gets X amount of the profit.

Gamecloths could even have some inhouse designers who help companies make cloths that both fit the game and can be sold.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Another thought regarding videogame clothing. Maybe the best solution for that isent that gaming companies individualy produce the cloths. Lets say a company called "Gamecloths" is founded. They make deals with companies who want their digital cloths sold as real stuff. Gamecloths gets to sell "Official Tommy Vercetti hawaian shirt" and Rockstar gets X amount of the profit.

Gamecloths could even have some inhouse designers who help companies make cloths that both fit the game and can be sold.

Hell, I wasn't excited about my desk job anyways. Step 1. I'll handle the legal issues, you win the lottery. Step 2.... Step 3. PROFIT!

 

[bkd69]

I think pure digital distribution will ameliorate a lot of cost issues. By having an extended shelf life, publishers will be able to keep the price at a better saleable constant for a constant period, as opposed to the nutty curve pricing that they run now.

They'll also be better able to stagger release dates, frex, releasing games in March and May, then either releasing a fully patched retail edition, if there's enough demand, or an expansion pack, or simply just make an advertising push when Winter Retail Holiday comes around.

 

[Fenixius]

Gameclothes... is an interesting idea. I know I want Dante's coat. But, again, it's sort of niche. It's not going to make enough money to keep the publishers off the developers' backs.

 

[Dom Camus]

Overall, I still strongly contend that the problem is that gamers have clear ideas about what they think they are entitled to. They regularly underestimate the monetary value of the things they take for granted, and it's going to be an unpleasant transition for many as these entitlements and freebies are necessarily transformed into a money making stream.

The search for revenue streams will likely happen exactly as you suggest, but I'm not sure gamers will be all that upset once it becomes reality.

The reason is simple: consumers have choices. Is a demo not worth $30, $20 or even $10? Economic theory tells us we can answer this question by trying to sell demos at those prices. Some gamers will buy, others won't. And some of those who don't will subsequently not bother with the full game either due to not having had a chance to try it out. Time and experimentation will sort out the solutions that generate the most revenue...

...and my guess is that gaming is going to get cheaper for most gamers, not more expensive, for the average player. Historically games have been written for the hardcore and subsidised by the rest of the market. But already that's beginning to change. The average time-to-complete for games with a concept of completion has been dropping for years. This obviously saves money, but the reason developers get away with it is because most players don't care. Indeed, some more casual players probably actively prefer shorter games.

More of this approach is what I expect to see in future. Games which provide somewhere around 10 hours of amazing gameplay for $40, then opportunities to buy substantially more content for players who want to. A kind of price targetting - those who don't mind parting with more money will be encouraged to do so, but without locking other players out from the core game experience.

 

[JohnBaker]

Personally I thought this article was refreshing to see. And a nice balance to the one-sided articles on in-game advertising.


"Unpopular though the concept may be, we need to be a little less hysterical in our reactions to the ways that companies try to make legitimate money."

This is a great summary to this. Many are hysterical to this. I am involved somewhat in-game advertising as a dev and publisher and it is a useful revenue stream.

Now, like you say L.B.J some games contain marketable products which might be relatively popular. However, the chances of a publisher/developer being able to negotiate a good deal with a third party producer (which is what most movie publishing houses use to produce tie-in merchendise) are slim because, as Ive said, the percieved market appeal of said products are very niche. The costs involved for a company to do it themselves mean that unless they find a philosophers stone, they will lose money trying to do it.

Consequently advertising & developing their own line of product is, currently, not an option the industry as a whole can move into to create a significant alternative avenue for profit. Maybe that will change, but change in regards to this article is irrelavent since its concerned with what the industry can exploit now, not in 10+ years.

I think you misunderstand how the in-game advertising market works. There are in-game ad networks IGA, Massive and Double Fusion who make up probably a cartel for people wanting to advertise in game. In general you have to go through these companies. They do deal with the advertising agencies of the brands and with teh publishers/dev houses. Often you get them advertised in many games at once with 'dynamic' advertising (content which is updateable via the Net that can change on the media in the game; billboards, vending machines, etc)

So from what you say about the film industry they have similiar models about getting advertising into the products.

Additional revenue streams are going to be a fact about the future of games. Micropayments, downloadable content, In-game ads, etc. Really you should be asking yourselves which one do I find most appealing not to hate them all.

Personally I don't like the paying for demos but other have no/little problem with if do right. THat most are BTW. We all here the horror stories about unsuitable in-game ads but most of these are myths or fears not the reality. I will call out to anyone again that has realworld examples of bad advertising/product placement in games to come forward. There are so few (any?!) out there. That is the reality of the hysteria about this and I suppose what the article is getting at.

 

[Cousin_IT]

I think you misunderstand how the in-game advertising market works. There are in-game ad networks IGA, Massive and Double Fusion who make up probably a cartel for people wanting to advertise in game. In general you have to go through these companies. They do deal with the advertising agencies of the brands and with teh publishers/dev houses. Often you get them advertised in many games at once with 'dynamic' advertising (content which is updateable via the Net that can change on the media in the game; billboards, vending machines, etc)

So from what you say about the film industry they have similiar models about getting advertising into the products.

Additional revenue streams are going to be a fact about the future of games. Micropayments, downloadable content, In-game ads, etc. Really you should be asking yourselves which one do I find most appealing not to hate them all.

Personally I don't like the paying for demos but other have no/little problem with if do right. THat most are BTW. We all here the horror stories about unsuitable in-game ads but most of these are myths or fears not the reality. I will call out to anyone again that has realworld examples of bad advertising/product placement in games to come forward. There are so few (any?!) out there. That is the reality of the hysteria about this and I suppose what the article is getting at.

Ill readily admit that my knowledge on the subjects of these alternate revanues is at best minimal. However,I still stand by & yet to be convinced otherwise the belief that as yet none of the alternate revanues potentials have proved themselves as genuine & profitable enough alternatives to warrent serious consideration at this time. As I said earlier, I dont see ingame advertising being a real moneymaker because those seeking to advertise their goods have so little to get out of it compared to other mediums. The audience is far smaller, the potential publicity is smaller, & the scope of using products in an identifyable way is smaller.

Currently, as you point out, dynamic advertising using things like billboards is method that is used. Anarchy Online, for example, is one game ive played that has rl advertisements inside the game. However, almost exclusively when I saw them the adverts being shown were for Ringtone companies & noname rappers. Now thankfully these billboards were small enough that they were quite ignorable, but thats exactly the problem; unless its in your face you can ignore it, removing its appeal to someone seeking to advertise their product. But if its all up in your face, the consumer is going to be put off by it &, by extention, the game that it happens in.

There are other ways of using advertisement of course. I know theres at least one MMO that does/will use advertisements in the UI as a way of generating income from those who play the free version of the game. But there again is a difference, its giving you an option: Play for free & have the adverts, or pay the monthly fee & get rid of it. That is not the same as buying a full retail price product then having to deal with the adverts as an extra, rather than alternate, layer.

Now, if, like with alot of DVDs, there were adverts at the beginning of loading a game, before you get into playing it (ie the bit between opening the game & it loading the main menu, whatever its called), then I could be quite happy with it; so long as it isnt Crazy Frog being flogged to me every single time (as has happened to advertising on TV music videochannels :-( ). However, this never seems to be the way advertising is discussed. Its all about being ingame; integrated into the game; synergising advertising with the player experience in an almost subliminal way. As far as im concerned this will never work as a real profitable alternate source of revanue, because the market isnt there for it to make it work that way.

I have no problem with the idea of the industry using alternate sources of revanue. My problem, is that currently the industry doesnt appear to provide anything to justify adding these costs on the consumer. Episodic gaming? Fine, except as Half-Life 2 shows currently the episodes take far to long for the rest of the industry to consider it as a real alternative. Micropayments? If games had the longevity for it then yes. However most games do not, & id imagine for most games the publisher & developer will get more for their product from onee solid payment then breaking it up overtime (correct me if ive misunderstood what you mean by micropayments). Downloadable content again, good in theory. But again, alot of companies fail to provide said content in an attractive mannor that they wouldnt be better off simply selling at retail (see the Oblivion example). Paying for demos would require more than the customary tutorial + first level approach most developers/publishers take when making them. Theres still away to go before Demos can be for the games industry what CD singles are for the music industry both in terms of content & the appeal to consumers(also note that in most cases singles dont make much profit, certainly not for the artist).

As for Dom's point on games getting cheaper; I doubt it. The only reason games will be sold for less is if its more profitable to do so than continue charging the current price. The cost of music CDs is driven down by the retailers not the record labels. Itunes & Tesco/Wal-mart are why you can now buy a new CD for under £10, not EMI, Altantic etc. the cost of new release DVDs has even gone up over the past 10years by about £5 (going by memory on that one I must admit). So games will not get cheaper just because publishers/developers find more ways to make money from them.

Now im all for digital distribution of older games that have passed their shelf-life. I wish I could download games like Pizza Connection 2, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Syndicate etc through sites like Metaboli. But currently, digital distribution is a mess. There is no Itunes, there are a myriad of legitimate download & illegal torrent sites all with a different catalogue of games. Added to this Metaboli's insistence that you have to have a working internet connection to play the games you download puts a real restraint on the freedom you have to use the game in a way downloading music or films (legitimately) doesnt. I use the metaboli example because its the only digital distribution model I have real experience with. Simularly, alot of older games are done by developers & publishers that have sinced been lost to history. Sadly, unlike most movies & music, when they go their games seem to go with them, making future production & distribution seem impossible to happen.

But theres another problem, the technological constraints on a games longevity. You can buy a Music CD made in the 80's will work on a modern CDplayer as well as an old one, same with a DVDplayer because the core technology of the player hasnt changed. By contrast a game made for Windows XP may have real problems trying to run on Vista, & games made for Xbox or PS1 will not work on their next gen decendents (not that they cant). Given the relatively short life of a console or PC operating system (about 5 years average id say), the constant technological drive that pushes gaming technology forward also means that once made games get left behind very fast. A movie made in the 1930s is still something you pay for today if its been recorded onto DVD. By contrast, a game made in the 1980s is a free-ware game today. Games like Asteroid, Elite, Doom etc will not sell in the same way classic movies do. Indeed the availability of free online clones of such games mean theyd probably not sell at all.