Gearbox defends in-game ad deal

By Robert Purchese Published 31 March, 2008

"Judge us from the result."

Gearbox has defended its recent in-game advertising deal by asking critics not to rubbish it "based on fears that may not turn out to be true".

In a post on the studio's blog, developer boss Randy Pitchford explained that the agreement would help improve authenticity in games and increase revenue to make them better. And he assured us that his team hates exploitative advertising as much as you.

"So, please don't judge us by the fact that some folks out there do it wrong and with exploitation as their key driving factor. This is not our motivation or intent. Don't judge us based on fears that may not turn out to be true," said Pitchford.

"Instead, judge us from the result. If you see in-game ads for some stupid product that has nothing to do with the context in which it occurs and actually detracts from the experience, then you can feel justified in bashing the developer, publisher, or advertiser that made that decision."

Pitchford went on to give an example of an old Philips factory that appears in Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. By being able to talk to the manufacturer, Gearbox has been able to faithfully recreate the old logo and use it to increase the authenticity of its game.

There are some fresh Hell's Highway screenshots to illustrate this over on the Gearbox website.

Pitchford also talked about marketing promotion to help widen the audience, which would mean better additional content post-launch.

So rather than point the finger, he wants you to come up with examples where in-game advertising has helped improve the final product, as well as examples of where it has damaged it.

What do you think, Eurogamer reader?

Examples for bad inclusions so far include "everything in Transformers", while Back to the Future was highlighted as having good adverts.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (31) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Moz #1 4 years ago

    I don't see a problem with this, if it leads to more content or lower game prices i'm all for non-disruptive advertising.

    Theres some good examples in the Wipeout franchise, in 2097 you had red bull all over the bill boards which didn't detract from the game, then in pure there was the Puma set of tracks and cars, and while that was a little more invasive the extra tracks and cars were free!

  • Killerbee #2 4 years ago

    As he says, it's all about context. I definitely think FEAR (for example) would actually have been improved if the vending machines actually had "Coke" on the front of them, instead of some generic logo. Real ads or logos can actually add to the realism and immersion in a game.

    What I don't want is for my gaming to be interrupted whilst I'm forced to watch an advert, or to see inappropriate ads that don't fit with the game's actual context or setting (e.g. Sony Walkman in a WWII shooter).

  • jellyhead #3 4 years ago

    I doubt this will ever lead to lower prices for gamers, it's just another revenue stream to suck more money out of us.
    Good advertising in games? 0_o

    Apart from in sports games or games with made up adverts like SiN Episodes and the like, no adverts are good in my view but as long as devs don't forget the primary reason of being in that environment is to play a game and not to have products rammed down your throat it might not be too offensive and ruin the immersion. If i see adverts for microwave ovens in a WWII shooter then the game has failed in my view as they've shown no repsect for the gamer who purchased it.

    but let's wait and see what path Gearbox take before crucifying them. :)

  • knocker #4 4 years ago

    "Back to the Future" Good ??! Wow. I remember that film introducing me to the hell of excessive product placement.

  • jellyhead #5 4 years ago

    After reading his article i can see better what he means and it sounds a lot less obtrusive than other devs have tried. From his examples of Fed-Ex in Castaway and Dole in Super Monkey Ball i can honestly say i wouldn't have even noticed them if he hadn't mentioned it and for me having a real-world name or a made up name doesn't really matter to me when i'm searching for entertainment. Driving a Jellymobile 2000z or a BMW M5 really doesn't matter to me when playing so it's a moot point to me. Seeing a company name put into a level where appropriate seems to fit in but cramming products down my throat will make me spew it back up. Having delays built into the game so that i have to watch the adverts would cheese me right off and i dread to think what EA have planned for their menus and loading screens.

    Again i'm there to play games and if the ads take me out of the game then the game is dead to me as far as i'm concerned.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #6 4 years ago

    its fine as long as the ad-supported games are free. If I pay for a game, then I would prefer not to have advertising slammed down my throat.

  • Les #7 4 years ago

    "I don't see a problem with this, if it leads to more content or lower game prices i'm all for non-disruptive advertising."

    It won't lead to more content or lower game prices. It's just needed to cover higher development cost. It might be better than paying more for our games though...

  • jellyhead #8 4 years ago

    @johhnywng - It'd be nice but they've already hinted that this goes towards the budget for the game not towards rebates for gamers unfortunately. I wonder if the money from the ad companies will just go towards making the advert assets for the game which would make it all a bit pointless really.

  • Moz #9 4 years ago

    @Les and jellyhead, sure if the money is going toward development cost this IS resulting in lower game prices, it's just in the sence of stopping the price going up.

  • kangarootoo #10 4 years ago

    Blade Runner is the example I always use. The city flyovers are chock full of colossal adverts, but they make sense in the context and add to the experience by grounding the otherwise quite scifi appearance of the scene.

  • kangarootoo #11 4 years ago

    "I wonder if the money from the ad companies will just go towards making the advert assets for the game"

    If that is all the ad money covered, there would be no incentive for the dev to bother including them.

  • BobsUncle #12 4 years ago

    "It's just needed to cover higher development cost. It might be better than paying more for our games though.."

    The higher development cost should be covered by todays much larger user base. Back in the day a SNES game wouldn't have cost that much to make, but still sold for £60 simply because there was far fewer people to buy them.

    So even though a game (e.g. GoW) might now cost $10 million dollars to make, if it's good it should make six time that in it's first week!

    Publishers just enjoy raping console owners. Is there any reason R6 Vegas 2 should be released on console and PC at the same time but the Console version is twice the price?

  • Camorrista #13 4 years ago

    Ahem, let me quote from their site. These are supposedly good examples of product placement:


    - Cast Away: Tom Hanks’ character worked for FedEx. That was much more authentic than if he worked for some fictional over-night air delivery service.

    - Super Monkey Ball: The bananas have the Dole sticker! I thought that was cool and funny, not cheap or sucky. It felt natural and was a nice detail that added character. It did not feel like an advertisement that was exploiting me.


    I rest my case.

  • gmmonkey #14 4 years ago

    Talkng about stupid ads... GET RID OF THOSE P.O.S. expandable flash adverts that you sem to ramming everywhere eurogamer. I'm getting right pissed off with them. Incredibly intrusive.

  • Les #15 4 years ago

    "So even though a game (e.g. GoW) might now cost $10 million dollars to make, if it's good it should make six time that in it's first week!

    Publishers just enjoy raping console owners. Is there any reason R6 Vegas 2 should be released on console and PC at the same time but the Console version is twice the price?"

    Yes, but the growth isn't really in the area of the big budget releases anymore (compared to last gen) but in the 'casual' corner. With a user base that isn't expanding much but development cost rising exponentially, publishers need to get revenue somehow. And don't forget that most of the games aren't good at all and don't earn the millions that GeoW, CoD4, Halo 3, etc. earn.

    As for the PC vs. console, licensing fees (and in the (non-patch) past quality assurance) made console versions more expensive for a publisher.

  • BobsUncle #16 4 years ago

    "Yes, but the growth isn't really in the area of the big budget releases anymore (compared to last gen) but in the 'casual' corner."

    Hmmm... I wouldn't totally agree with that. Halo 3 was responsible for bringing millions of new users to the 360, I didn't notice Viva Pinata doing the same. :-) And there's god knows how many people waiting for MGS before they'll get a PS3.

    As for releasing shit games, if a publisher decides to back a shitty product then they should expect to sell none. They should use thier cash more carefully rather than banking on in game ads to recoup some cost.

    I know licencing (and initial set up costs) add a bit to the price of a console release, but really, 25 quid per unit? Come on!

  • penhalion #17 4 years ago

    Ok for fairness I trawled through their waffle about why adverts are right for in-game. Their answer boils down to a simple greed mentality. The advertisers pay them money to do product placement. Stuff like the philips factory screenshots and the opal logo on the front of WW2 trucks.

    The problem with that argument is that

    A. I wasn't in WW2 so wouldn't notice a logo on the front of a truck being missing.
    B. Having a Philips logo on a german Nazi factory wouldn't exactly help philips sales now would it.
    C. How do either of these two things help me snipe an enemy soldier in a multiplayer match.

    Let's face it, it's more jarring to see a logo you recognise in a game than it is to play a game without logos. You tend to end up remembering the TV advert you saw the logo in and then that takes you right out of any immersion you would have been having. It's partly why movies in cinemas make up most of the logos and product names you see. Exceptions being scenes shot in supermarkets or retail shops. Even then, it's usually the movies paying to use the logos and not the other way around.

  • robg #18 4 years ago

    While I agree that in-game advertising (e.g. billboards, drink machines, etc) can often add to the immersion (adverts should no more pull people out of the game than pull people out of real life when they see them in said) I don't see why this guy has to try and spin it as being purely there to advantage the gamer. Just tell the truth: you want the money, but will do your best to not compromise your games with the adverts. That'll do.

  • Amajiro #19 4 years ago

    So what they're really trying to say is that (in the name of authenticity) games so far have just been massive gun advertisements and this is just broadening the range?

    It's the thin end of the wedge, mark my words. Accept this and we accept in-your-face billboards and in-game pop-ups before the next generation is with us.

  • monkie_king #20 4 years ago

    BobsUncle: PC and console publishing is a completely different model. The console game's price subsidises R&D, manufacturing, marketing and support for the hardware itself, securing platform exclusives, providing the online infrastructure, 1st-party game development, and the approval process for licensed games. And lots of other stuff, too.

    Does that add up to £25 worth at retail? Hard to say without knowing the specifics of the licensing deal.

  • knocker #21 4 years ago

    @simonb

    "The use of logos in Back to the Future was to accentuate the differences between time periods."

    That sounds like an excuse rather than a reason. I particularly noticed them focusing on the logo of the video camera. (JVC?). Not really needed to accentuate anything. I doubt many regular viewers would have noticed the subtle changes in Pepsi logos, as much as the logo itself.

  • knocker #22 4 years ago

    I can only really see this being a problem if it was done very, very badly - or if it became very very popular.

    It would be a terrible thing if advertising played a big enough part in a games financing to start to influencing what games are backed. "I've god this great idea for a game, a guy called Kratos is in ancient greece and ..." "ancient greece you say ? not much opportunity to leverage our advertising potential ... "

    (waits for Phorm to release a gaming api)

  • BobsUncle #23 4 years ago

    Monkie_king, your point is valid about a small subsidy to the console maker. I know MS and Sony get a cut of every game that's released for their system and they have to as the consoles make very little for a very long time. But as for platform exclusives, there's not many console exclusives (to one console) now (where's the cash in that?!). And why should I pay extra for online? I already pay MS £40 a year for live, and for those that aren't on live why should they pay?

    I fully expect to pay a few quid extra for my console games because of the extra hurdles you have to go through to make them. But anyone who thinks a console title is worth double the price of a PC title must also think petrol is good value for money! And as for the added 'next-gen' development resources argument some claim, they pumped out Crysis for £25...

    It's just one of those things now, publishers have learnt that PC owners wont pay more than 30 quid, but console owners will. They charge a lot because they can.

  • skillian #24 4 years ago

    It's just one of those things now, publishers have learnt that PC owners wont pay more than 30 quid, but console owners will. They charge a lot because they can.

    Bingo. Just like they will add adverts to games because they can. Reading this article it almost seems like he is saying the primary purpose of in-game ads is too increase player immersion. Which is, of course, absolute rubbish.

    The fact is they would put an ad in your game every 2 minutes if the increase in revenue offset the lost sales of the game.

  • sneetch #25 4 years ago

    Firstly, I'm neither for nor against adverts in game, if it's not "in-your-face" advertising then I don't particularly care one way or the other (apart from those bloody flash adverts that fill the screen because you don't drive your mouse the right way around them), I'm just playing devils advocate.

    @penhalion
    "Ok for fairness I trawled through their waffle about why adverts are right for in-game. Their answer boils down to a simple greed mentality. The advertisers pay them money to do product placement. Stuff like the philips factory screenshots and the opal logo on the front of WW2 trucks.

    The problem with that argument is that

    A. I wasn't in WW2 so wouldn't notice a logo on the front of a truck being missing.
    B. Having a Philips logo on a german Nazi factory wouldn't exactly help philips sales now would it.
    C. How do either of these two things help me snipe an enemy soldier in a multiplayer match. "

    Well, I think a stated desire to cover expenses and turn a profit is different from greed, but that's a matter of opinion.

    A. Fair enough. I and many others would be aware that Opel made trucks for Germany during WW2. I wouldn't care if the logo was missing, I would think "nice touch" if I noticed one though.
    B. Philips are a Dutch company so they wouldn't be "Nazi factories". However, they would have been commandeered by the Germans and I'm sure the Dutch resistance members are using it as a base or something. It'll be a positive or at worst neutral use of Philips.
    C. They won't. They're there to lend an air of authenticity to the game, that's all.

    "Let's face it, it's more jarring to see a logo you recognise in a game than it is to play a game without logos. You tend to end up remembering the TV advert you saw the logo in and then that takes you right out of any immersion you would have been having. It's partly why movies in cinemas make up most of the logos and product names you see. "

    Well, I can understand how that might be the case for you that these logos will bring you out of the game but it doesn't work that way for me. If the logo is era appropriate then it's fine with me for example a 1930's/1940's Coca Cola ad in a WWII shooter would be fine and would for me increase immersion, if it's subtle that is and appropriate (for example, I don't believe the Reichstag was wallpapered in ads ;) ).

    @Killerbee
    "What I don't want is for my gaming to be interrupted whilst I'm forced to watch an advert, or to see inappropriate ads that don't fit with the game's actual context or setting (e.g. Sony Walkman in a WWII shooter)."

    Heh, I can imagine the cut scene after Reb (or Jedd or Butch or Chet or whatever) gets shot "Luckily the iPod my mom shipped over to me stopped the rifle round, thank God she used DHLExpress, the best darn shipping company ever." :)

  • sneetch #26 4 years ago

    As for the cost of console games vs the cost of PC games. Most of it is they charge more simply because they can charge more for a console game; people are used to paying more and have demonstrated that they're willing to pay €70 for a "next gen" console game, but not so for a PC game. Shortly after the 360 launched I remember seeing side by side the 360 (€70), xbox (€50) and pc versions of GRAW (€40) and being astounded at the price differences. As for the increased cost of development; training costs aside, I dare say it's easier to develop (and especially test) for the 360 (one particular configuration) than it is for the PC (an enormous mishmash of possible components, manufacturers and so on).

    I have to wonder if they would make more on extra volume of sales if they were willing to sell them for €50, but I'm sure there's a legion of serious men and women with flip charts and graphs that would tell me "no".

  • MattyD #27 4 years ago

    If they have dynamic ads like Rainbow Six Vegas I'll be more than a little miffed. If they had hand-drawn period art with sassy 1940s pin-up girls however... Well, that would be a different matter ^_^

  • DanWhitehead #28 4 years ago

    It's partly why movies in cinemas make up most of the logos and product names you see.

    This really isn't true. Movies go out of their way to show actual logos and product names, because then the companies will pay to ensure that it's their logo or product and not a rival. Also, we really need to lose this idea that a company finding new ways to make money is being greedy. Developers aren't charities, supplying us with entertainment for the sheer joy of making us smile. They're in business. Many of them are going out of business. Intelligent use of advertising is a smart way of counterbalancing the blockbuster-driven business model of the current games scene.

  • suicida #29 4 years ago

    "Also, we really need to lose this idea that a company finding new ways to make money is being greedy. Developers aren't charities, supplying us with entertainment for the sheer joy of making us smile. They're in business. Many of them are going out of business. Intelligent use of advertising is a smart way of counterbalancing the blockbuster-driven business model of the current games scene. "

    QFT.

    If it's done well I have no problem at all with in-game ads, my mind is conditioned to ignore most of them anyway...

  • HEAVYface #30 4 years ago

    i think this is the start of a worrying trend.

    i don't play games to be sold stuff - i kind of play games to get away from the real world and all the shit we deal with day to day..

    i don't think it will be long before it moves away from just having logos in games to the characters directly endorsing stuff in cutscenes etc.

    anyone remember lara croft and lucozade? this is the logical step for I.G.A

  • kangarootoo #31 4 years ago

    @BobsUncle

    "The higher development cost should be covered by todays much larger user base"

    Its not that simple at all. A larger user base won't necessarily all buy an even spread of the titles made. A larger market can just mean an extra 2m people buying the next GoW or Halo.


    "Also, we really need to lose this idea that a company finding new ways to make money is being greedy. Developers aren't charities, supplying us with entertainment for the sheer joy of making us smile. They're in business. Many of them are going out of business. Intelligent use of advertising is a smart way of counterbalancing the blockbuster-driven business model of the current games scene."

    +3