How do ads in games benefit gamers?

Thryon, I just rewatched Game 2 from the Canada-Russia summit series in 1972 (hockey for those who don't know). As I watched I realized that there were no rink ads at all. In fact the only arena in that series that did have rink ads was the Soviet one, in a communist state. That's ironic. The point is this, only 35 years ago there were no rink ads, less in fact. This year AHL teams started adding advertisers logos to their jerseys.

http://www.theahl.com/AHL/News/2005/12/19/tor-celeb_200.jpg

Advertising is expanding and there are no more sacred things. Even the Kentucky Derby this year has a title sponsor.

We should make enough noise that they make an attempt at being responsible most of the time with placement, but get used to it.

Enhance your calm 32_Footsteps, I just had to get that "Demolition man" joke in there.

I would be lying if I said ads didn't help media off set cost. The only problem is the real benefit towards the gamer. I think 32_footsteps summed it up nicely, but I would still like to add my 2cents. My question isn't whether adds should or shouldn't be in games, because they already are. My question is whether the video game console and PC community is ready to take a stand if it gets out of control.

In the other post Benjamin mentions, that how many times has anybody left a theater over poor advertising. Which is true, many people don't leave the theater when a film goes over board on product placement. I remember Minority Report went above and beyond the need to tell me Lexus cars were so great, but I still sat there and finished the film. I think the biggest part of this debate is once the product is obtained our power to now reject the media we are recieving is some what diminished. Yes while I maybe disgusted by the movie, even if I walk out of it they still recieved their 10.75 from my pocket.

The second problem I have is Video Gaming is still so young, and already in america there has been one crash is the industry really ready for such a broad stroke? Let's face facts we still have system wars, and gamers still take sides, which on the one hand makes us very passionate. Yet on the other hand how long will it take the community to react if a company they truly trusted let advertising abuse the market which is gaming. I tell you right now the last days of the sega console, even when alot of my friends and I saw that games were being created for the Naomi2 board that could not hope to be played on a dreamcast; we still didn't believe the rumors, and the proof that really was everywhere that sega was giving up on the console sector.

Apply this kind of loyalty to Nintendo, or Sony, and you have a market of people ready and willing to endure alot of bad with out any sign of benfit in the future. How is Movies and Print media any different? The truth is that it has been around long enough that the consumers really doesn't care, also the variety is large enough that if one doesn't give you want you want another will. Nobody argues the fact that the New York times or Wall street Journal is better than the Post. That kind of statement could not be even contemplated about systems today, with out a ten page flame war on none of the systems merits other than loyalty of the fanbase. There is also the fact that if you are tired of american movies there is always the ability to watch an independent or Foreign film, the choices are much more broader than the Game Industry at this point.

So Of course adds could help gaming, but in the exsisting gaming market I don't think it gives the consumer much power to reject what they don't like, and embrace what they do. As for gaming critics being able to help, I see it this way. EGM, GAMESPOT, GamePRo, all benefit from advertsing. If the same person paying you to advertise in your magazine now adds obscene amounts of advertising into a video game, are you really free to critize them with out monetary reprisal?

Prof-KOS: If you weren't my buddy I tell you to read my post #7 about the Live Gold...but you are so I won't! :) Just messin' with you, man...great minds think alike, right?

Sure, the companies could offer cheaper games and/or free services but *would* they?

I doubt it. In game ads will only serve the bottom line of the company in question.

Sorry, I got here a little late, read a couple of comments and posted back. Ah well, that's what happens with ADD.

benjamin -- I don't think we're going to see loading screens go away, given the the emphasis on graphics and textures, etc. Those take time to cache. But yeah, your reply reflects my concerns as well. However, the developers and the advertisers will (hopefully) make it a goal to minimize this disruption. I wouldn't expect Taco Bell or Cadillac ads here, or even video ads. I was thinking more about static ads for Bethesda's next game or 2K's next games.

That said, it would still make for a different experience. But how much? And I wonder how much projected revenue there would be if, for example in Oblivion, an ad for Beth's Star Trek game or 2K's Prey popped up every 4th loading screen. I don't feel like this would detract from the game, even such an immersive game as Oblivion. Remember, we're already pulled out from the illusion when the loading screen comes up anyway.

As an aside, ads could of course be automatically downloaded via XBL to keep them up to date. Although this would likely require some changes in the way the console and game interact. (E.g., would the dashboard have to swoosh in to display the ad if the ads are updateable?)

You can wine and complain all day, but it won't stop it from happening. Ads are coming.

I don't believe it will stop the price of games from rising. But i do think it will help minimalize the growth ratio. Because with next-gen games costing so much more to develope ads should help keep prices where they are for the time being. As time goes on and costs raise more the price of games will rise more, just like movies. I don't know who said it, but who ever mentioned that the price of movies keeps going up despite the ads and product placement is right... kinda. if you think about it, the price of any 2 movies that are playing at the same theatre is the same, whether its a low-budget chick flick or a over priced blockbuster. The reason is the ads keep the large movies reasonable for us, and the movies that lack ads dont have that luxury.

yeah yeah yeah, the theatres all have contract with movie companies and yada yada yada, but the ads help facilitate the steady prices. The reason prices of movies rise is the same reason prices of EVERYTHING rise, inflation, plain and simple. so why should video games get the same luxury?

A good majority of what is addressed is true. Ad revenue COULD be used to make the gaming experience less expensive, or more realistic, or better. The facts still remains that we are dealing with money grubbers.

The majority of advertisers will want to invest in big game companies so they can reach a broader audience. Small game developers will still struggle for development funding.

The ad revenue generated in some games could go to diffuse the costs of developing more innovative games. It's more likely that the developers will try to make more games with ad revenue to raise profits instead of improving gameplay. It's more likely because the game companies getting the ad deals are the same ones who spitting out clone after clone of the same game, or crappy games to whatever title sells (be it movie or television or whatever).

I too would like to be hopeful about in game advertisement. However I'm forced to be skepitcal because it's hard to trust money motivated "individuals" with anything that would affect the end user.

Ads in sports only started in the 80's, and got super crazy recently. This about the same time as player salaries went up also. But for some reason, we are paying more for sporting events than ever before.

This comes down to the same topic that was already mentioned, the end product cost a lot more than in the old days. EA Sports have to pay each sports league to be able to use team logos. Then they have to pay the players league to use the likeness of each sports player. This price has to be way more than it was 10 years ago. This does not come cheap. Do we realy want to pay $200 each game.

In my previous post I gave the example of ads in newspapers. The actual cost of your daily newspaper would be over $10 if not for all the ads. They allow for the price to be reduced to just pennies.

Now movies are similar to games. Each movie/game created is a potential risk. Just because a game is great, does not mean it will be a financial success (look at Spychonaught). If allowing in game ads would equal reduced risk to publishers, and more games released, then I am 100% for it.

Prof-KOS, if I could give stars, you would get one for watching the 72' Series. OF course Game 8 was the best one (but I may be biased)

Thryon,

I like game 2 because it's the only one that they looked good for while in Canada.

Regardless, you're right. There is a synergy between the rise in advertising with the rise in costs of products and entertainment. This is important to realize and consumers have to understand that. All we can do is pressure the companies to keep it tasteful. They will do that because advertising is more effective if it is accepted.

Pretty simple.

Make great games, it'll sell and make money. No need for ads.

Should we start putting ads in everything? ads in american cards so they generate more money?

are ads the solution?

No.

Videogames are supposed to be fun.

Think about it for a second, close your eyes...

Ads have NOTHING to do videogames!

Aren't we already tired enough of seeing ads on tv, ads on the street, ads in the mail, ads on business vehicles, ads in the newspaper, and so on...

Enough, lemme have some clean fun for once.

Here's something interesting to consider: gamers might not ever know whether or not advertising is benefitting them.

I was thinking about this, in context with what I have said in addition to other people. It's nice to say, "Thanks to advertisers, this service is free," or "Ads help keep this game under US$75." But to be honest, we don't know if they do or not. And we won't know unless companies come forward on their own accord and show how things would be different without advertising.

Now, I personally think that discussions like this will encourage some companies (ones more attuned to customer service) to come forward with these figures. If so, this conversation and ones like it are more useful beyond simple discussion and analysis. However, other companies (not to name names, but think of ones that rhyme with "Delectronic Farts") will probably hoard that information like the keys to Fort Knox.

And zsavior, thanks for getting the reference. I was afraid at first nobody would.

32_footsteps. Interesting observation. Of course we may never know, but we can probably guess. Based on just normal business sense, advertising does help gamers. Here's how (in theory: If a developer/publisher can make more money on a game it gives them greater latitude in future games (not just boring sequels). This is a benefit to gamers. Whether we pay less for the game doesn't matter. The advertising gives us access to more and better games. Maybe that's true, but it's an indirect advantage.

Yea if game prices DROPPED because of adverts then yea. That would be marginally better. But they're NOT. They're just the tool for the developer to get even more money

What happens when all games become sims? Then we no longer have games. Sims are not games, games are fantasy worlds, games are things that cannot be. They're a break from reality. When it's nothing but sims then I'll stop buying consoles and stick with retro Sonic and Mario.

I'll tell you how ads in games SHOULD benefit gamers.
It should make the games cheaper.

They say it's inevitable, that there will be ads in games. OK, I can live with that - there will always be ROMs, emulators, DOSBox, compatability mode, and Home of the Underdogs, all of which mean that there will be thousands of classics to play that DON'T have ads in them.

In other words: the game companies can have my money or they can have the advertisers', but they won't have both. Furthermore, if they choose to grab on to the grubby little coattails of marketing execs to mewl like starved little kittens for the money to have realistic drops of sweat with dynamically angulated bumpmapocentric trilinearsophous physics come from the 5,000 pores that they now have on game characters' faces, then they won't have my attention, either.

Make games fun. Make them profound, even - make them art. But if you make them expensive due to ridiculous eye candy that do nothing to enhance #1 and #2, then prepare to lose the audience that makes saliva drip from the marketers' bloodstained fangs.

My principle concern over this whole debate has been that games that don't easily lend themselves to in-game advertising could see a drop off in production as developers lean towards games that do, however, as I think it over I can see a different side.

There are plenty of successful films that take place in a fantasy world where advertisements for real world products would be ludacris, The Lord of the Rings springs immmediately to mind, that haven't suffered production setbacks or been cancelled because advertising in-film wasn't possible. I think this may be due to the fact that the same studio that produces a film that lends itself to enormous product infusion also produces these other kinds of films. If the revenue that one film generates in advertising money is used to offset other projects, it may not matter that one film has ads and another doesn't within the same studio.

If game developers use a similar model, that could mean nothing but additional revenue available to develop non-advertisement-infused games in addition to ones that use them. I'm still concerned, however, about studios that haven't traditionally produced many modern-world games wanting to abandon RPG/adventure-type games in favor of racers and sports games but at least we may not have to worry about some of the bigger studios.

I see from an Joystiq article I read about the MMORPG world just how much conditioning works.

Listen guys. If advertisers knew they could get away with blatant advertising in videogames, they would drive down the quality of gaming.
You forget about money, power & its relations to corruption. ABSOLUTE-ly. Now you've got it.

There's been something dissuading advertisers from loading ads into videogames only allowing certain usage in certain ways in the past.

There was a poster earlier who said I shouldn't assume Nintendo is so clean when it comes to ads in games & I do have to concede his point to a degree.

I remember playing Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles 2 on the NES with Pizza Hut billboards & things in the game.
I also played Yo! Noid on the NES which basically a walking commercial for Domino's Pizza.
And I remember Cool Spot on the Sega Genesis, another walking commericial for 7Up.

But for the most part advertisements, at least as far as I've seen, have been largely limited in videogames. I don't own Sony or Microsoft systems so I'm not sure how prevalent this may have already become.

If any ads should be used they should be done non-obtrusively & irrelevant to the gameplay. Imagine playing Zelda & then Link pulls out his Windchester Field & Stream (TM) Bow shooting Swiftwind (TM) Fire Arrows [fire provided by Duraflame (R)(TM) lighter fluid]. You'd be pissed.
And then when you first obtain those new items you get to hear a special ad telling you about other real-life products from those companies in a 'live' commercial cutaway.
Would destroy the franchise instantly.

No longer would mere 'pizza' be a power-up. Now you'd have to pick up Stuffed Crust Pan Pizza from Pizza Hut (TM) complete with Jessica Simpson prancing around telling you about current special offers.

Now for some games like racing games I could put up with a spare ad here & there on a videogame billboard just so long as it isn't too intrusive. Not necessarily needed but for some games especially of the sports variety to capture the realism you have to capture that element too.

I'm not talking about videogame parodies of ads. Like the Mario Karts & their mockeries of advertisements with the characters promoting something on a billboard. That's different. It's not a real-life product & it adds a humorous effect on advertisements in general.

But even with all that said I don't see Nintendo promoting Nintendo Power within the game.
I have no problem with advertising outside of the game like the accompanying pamphlets & cards that come along with games or future coming attractions segments as an option in the game to check other releases. Those are cool. But advertisement should always be kept on a leash.

This is a large reason why TV & movies suck so much now as a whole. It's not about making a work of art; it's about harvesting demographics to buy some BS products. That WILL INDEED happen to gaming if gameplayers let it.

When you pay money for something you should not want ads in your product. Free TV & radio are different. They depends on ads for revenue judging by viewership. Makes me think twice about cable TV now that I think about it but then again HBO, Showtime, & Cinemax are great examples of adless, paid-for programming.

Imagine getting an album of music and in-between every song the artist is huckstering other works of his or products from some ad agency. Would ruin music wouldn't it?

Unlike net games like Text Twist & Hexic on things like PopCap games, consoles have a revenue source.
So ads should be next to non-existent in them.

We don't want advertisers getting control of what games we get based on what they feel they can sell the best.

Just we're used to it in TV & such doesn't mean it's all good.
Gamers fight that conditioning.

John Lucas
(NOBODY watches TV/movies for the ads, or they shouldn't anyway)

Wow great debate.

A while back in this thread someone said that having in game ads in a game in which they would appear more suited (racing, sports) might give the publisher motivation to make more games of those types than fantasy/RPG titles.

The fact of the matter is; they already do. I am a proud owner of all systems on the market, and am aggrivated about the current lineup for the 360 because I am not a fan of the "ad inclusive" genres.

Compare how many sports/racing games are released to the number of any other genre.

The silver lining to this is, however, that like any niche market, if you are a paying customer, someone will make something for you to buy (God bless capitalism).

As weary as I am to the intentions of advertisers in games, I don't think the amount of high quality titles will decrease in number. They are already at a dismally low release rate as it is. I can't really see it getting worse =p

Full on in game "ads" based on the "television ad model" will not work, they'll only alienate gamers further. What do people do during ads? Get up, go to the bathroom, get a snack, make out on the couch..., nobody pays attention to the ads. The smack of "look, we're cool, we can make a funny ad, you are the mindless masses, NOW BUY OUR STUFF OR SUFFER!" Gamers avoid games alone because of that same attitude, now what do you think would happen if the same attitude were to be put into a great game?

As for product placement, it has to be done with intelligent and "panache". If Sam Fisher is going to whip out his shiny new Razor cell phone, we don't need to have someone tell him to "pull out his Razor phone", or for Sam to say "I'll call on my Razor phone."

Stuff like a soda machine with Coke on the label, or driving by a billboard advertising Firestone tires, or running into a PacSun for some new clothes is OK, because it doesn't take you out of the immersion to deliver the message. The ad is tacked on in the background rather than slammed directly in your face.

The game companies will see the effects, positive or negative, of ads and product placement in games, depending on how they're implemented.

Well, there is also the fact to be considered that video games have a very nice portion where an advert(imho)would not make any difference to me. Mini games in loading screens are patented and hence cannot be used. Why should I begrudge the developers any money they make placing an advert during that time? The more money they make, the higher the chances that another game company doesn't go belly up. Games like F.E.A.R/Doom 3 have 10-15 second load times. A text/image advert shouldn't be a problem.

What [i]could[/i] happen is that the load times are intentionally increased to include more adverts. Now [b]that[/b] would piss me off.

I just want to add my two cents to the discussion on whether getting addicted to add revenue will cause game makers to push games that are amenable to effective advertising. My opinion is yes, but only to a point. Don't forget that a little profit is better than none at all. Companies in whatever industry want to penetrate every niche of the market, even when some niches are more profitable than others. In each market they will maximize profit, but they realize that some things work for some niches and don't for others. The only way companies will STOP making RPGs is if it is true that for every RPG game purchased, the purchaser would buy a racing game if the RPG were not available. This is not the case. A lot of people buy RPGs, and would buy nothing if the RPG were not there. This is the definition of a niche. If anything, I see an advantage for RPG gamers, because the huge megacorp game mills, like EA, may forsake RPG games because of their relative unprofitability, which would leave the market open for smaller, more creative developers, whose games at the present time cannot compete with the add-driven sales of horrible EA games.

This one deserved more than a comment:

http://darthpixel.com/

I can see it now, someone will screw up at quality control and you'll see a Sony or Nintendo ad on your Xbox... it will be a hoot.
Ads in game will neither hurt nor hinder the games. we'll all learn to ignore them just like on tv or radio. hear the ad start go to the restroom.

My biggest beef with in-game ads: I love the fake brands that graphic artists concoct. I love all the little Sorny TVs and Parasonic cameras in anime, all the SPLURGE soda machines in virtual offices, and all the Maibatsu Monstrosities competing with me for right-of-way. Yes, it's realism for now, but what about when the company inevitably changes the design? Could you imagine playing a game like Deus Ex with futuristically-styled Pepsi machines that were retired a decade ago? It kills the immersion in a way an obviously made-up Soylent Cola machine never will.

Mal F4cti0n go f yourself with a stick. I was clarifying how yahoo and pogo games are actually supported by adds. They aren't in the games themselves. They load up prior to you playing the game then go away and only reload after several sessions.

And a lot of people have gone to the paid versions to avoid the ads.

Speaking of ads becoming annoying anyone watch how the Sci-fi handles ads?

And ad execs wonder why they have to spend so much money on ads and increase them. Less ads more ad money and more products being brought because you are not ruining people's tv experience.

As for ads on dvds guess what ad companies were wanting to put ads on dvds you cannot skip through, you cannot fast forward them through.

Too much advertising drives up costs of programs etc, and drives people away to services that don't advertise so much.

Have you seen G4techtv adds? In the damn programs they have these adds taking up a good portion of the scream obstructing the progam's content.

Ads in loading screens in games you pay for would drive people away especially if these people pay 60 dollars or more for them.

They have been shortenting numerous tv programs due to these ad.

Minority Report people seem to have forgotten the purpose of those ads was actually anti-ad in nature.

Hi Folks,

I agree with all of you but the video game industry is changing: MS, Sony and Nintendo are building next gen consoles in order to provide us with amazing games. The consequences: video game budgets are soaring (2 to 5x for a next-gen AAA) and the audience doesn't follow this huge increase. Publishers have to find new business models and in game advertising seems obvious. Not for all games of course but sports and city landscape games. The issue is the impact on us, consumers, games price are increasing and we do not see any benefits (I mean money benefit). I don't think they're gonna fool us for a long time with just the realism enhancement... What must be the deal? If I don't want to see ads, I just have to switch off their technology, if I accept I receive an incentive/reward. I must feel EA wants to keep me as a customer and not a mug...

The video game industry is one of the largest industry in the world and we do not have a sort of loyalty program or miles program, what the f..k is going on there?

I launch a survey: who wants a video game miles to play more and spend less, to be treated as a consumer and not a stupid moneybox?

How do ads in games benefit gamers? Easy. By making the games cost a lot less. But since that doesn't happen and ads are still in the games there is no need for the ads.

I predict in the near future, there will be three editions of every game. The ad riddled version ($60) The Collector's Edition ($70) and the no ad version ($80).

Why is everyone crying about the ads?You wont see adds that are not relevant, just like you dont see adds that are really out of place now.Remember, the people that make these awesome games arent stupid in the sense that they would put a samsung ad in oblivian.pd0 has a samsung pda and a windows laptop.That runs windows 2020 I believe.Thats cool its all about gadgets and these things are gadgets.Trust it guys the master chief will not be eating bluebell ice cream.When things like that happen as someone said earlier dan choi and those guys will let us know how the ads are if its a big problem.

I really dont care.If a silly firestone billboard ad makes you upset and distracts you from the game world even when its in a realistic setting, then you my friends need to get outside and get a life.If you arent strong minded enough to not run out and buy taco bell when you play the latest need for speed game,then you actually have a problem.We get ads in the mail, commercials, hey and even if you stay up late at night you will get hit with the infomercials!So you actually think that video games were not gonna get hit?And I think that you guys are thinking about a game world where everything is covered in ads, this is not the case.It would make games like gta a whole lot better.I would rather go to a taco bell than a cluckin bell.

Ahem Planetside which takes place in the far future cut off completly from Earth had ads put in for Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo. Massive was the company that put them in. The game has had most of it's players leave due to this.

Fight Night Round 3 was a boxing minigame wrapped up in an ad for Burger King. It didn't lower the game cost.

Sorry but ads that have no place have been put in games where you cannot skip them or destroy them.

Ads in certain racing games have meant the cars couldn't take any damage since the advertisers refused it.

So your nascar games when your hit slams into the concrete your car will not be damaged nor the billboards on the track. Unlike real life.

No car customization in the games with ads in them either if advertisers have there way. Sorry turakdaone but we have seen how bad ads can make a game if the advertisers have their way.

Massive has ruined several MMOs with their ads since the ads are indestrictuble and in your face.

Windows 2020 isn't a real product yet so it's just a fake ad stating the game takes places around 2020.

This is way too much of an ideal post rather then a realistic one. To summerize:

Idea 1: Key word, "casual", these games are made for past times, or projects, not meant to target or even penetrate the game market, after all who buys a 3000$ computer to play something on 'Yahoo!'? Only the companies hosting the game profit off of this.

Idea 2: What keeps developers afloat is a good game, not advertisement, this is rediculous and plain stupid. Neither gamers nor games were made within the pass 2 years when online-advertisement commenced, so there was no need back then, nor now.

Idea 3:If premium services became free because of advertisements in game, then microsoft would've cut even after spending millions to purchase an ad revenue creating company, point of wasting millions of dollars would be "_______________" (insert your answer there).

Idea 4:Realism isn't through me jumping off a helo while being attacked by 20 mexican soldiers overthrowing the gov't and then seeing a DODGE advertisement written in half ass spanish saying "its alive". (GRAW), or even me walking through some alleyway and then seeing some blazing hot chick with axe commercial on it, yeah...very real.

To sum it up: ads can be beneficial to companies recieving the money for putting the ads in game, not the end user. I'll change my mind about this when the game that costs 50-60$ to buy in the store costs 10$ because of "ads" offsetting costs.

Idioteraser,people didnt leave planetside because of a duece bigalow ad, not in a sufficient amount that actually hurt the game.I would like to see that with a link or something.If they left it was because it wasnt a game that could tide the masses over even when the next big thing came out.

Fight night is not a mini game in my opinion either.I laughed hard as hell when I saw the king for the first time in the 360 version.So you may have hated it, but not everyone hated it.I dont eat burger king, so I really didnt even look at it that way.Fight night also got high scores, guess the reviewers didnt hate the burger king intrusion enough to deduct points.And furthermore its companies like these that actually sponsor these boxing matches!Dodge etc.
For everyone that you find that doesnt like the king I can find one who does.I love the nfl commercials as well.Demolition man was a taco bell advertisement, but I still liked that movie.

Nascar doesnt want you recreating a dale earnhardt crash.That actually what hinders the sport, the negative.The nfl doesnt allow dirty hits because that would tarnish its image, so the commisioner of the nfl does not tolerate it.You see but people actually like violence so games like blitz can sell well.So I dont really believe that its the ads as you portray.I hope that you are wrong, but the consumers have the power!If you want madden and final fantasy to feel completely new, then just sit on the side lines, and if enough people do then I WILL BET YOU THAT YOUR PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED.Square will make a better ff game, and ea will make a madden that is so revolutionary that it will be talked about for ages.So you see this is the approach you should be taking anyway.Dont buy something because joystiq readers say so, use your own brain and make logical decisions.If advertising offends you then dont buy it.Trust me you guys will not be by yourselves.I will gladly sit on the fence until they remove it.Thats if its like and ad every 3 feet in the game.
If I am not mistaken ferrari had this deal where they didnt want the likeness of their cars destroyed in racing games.Forza did it, but I dont really remember many others.And idioteraser the nascar games you speak of which game has ever really allowed even bumper damage?I am talking in places where there are no stickers or advertisements.The tech actually just hasnt been implemented, but only in a few games forza and pgr3.I could be wrong, but I dont remember many.Hell even Grand Tourismo doesnt allow damage and it has no extreme advertising.So maybe the answer lies in the devs just not putting it in the games as well.Thats why that xna demo of the crashing car was so exciting.Imagine burnout without car damage.But thats the premise of the game.

I think that the problem actually lies in this argument that m$ is doing it.I dont understand why everyone hates m$ so much.Is it because of what they did to apple? or that they have tons of cash?Who the hell cares!!!Maybe I an wrong but just look at what m$ has bought to the gaming console scene.Online play thats good, custom soundtracks, do you really think that nintendo would have actually had an online system in their ds or their wii if m$ hadnt made it so?What about sony?Joystiq is filled with nintendo fans, but the same box they try to think outside of is the same box they entrap themselves in.I will bet you that nintendo will have advertisements.They are a evolutionary company, but they hinder themselves with you guessed it not enough mature games.I wont spend 60$ dollars on a sonic game unless its just that damn good!But I think every hack and slash games should have blood!Im just ranting now.But I do hope that your wrong idioteraser.Time will tell us.

#81, I agree with your sentiment completely.

The point about damage modelling in racing games is a poignant one. Including damage in racing games is a step toward realism and immersion. The last game I could think that included it was Need For Speed: High Stakes, which happens to be my favorite of the series. Since then I suppose license holders (car manufacturers) have decided it wouldn't be beneficial to allow people to smash their cars in-game.

The main point I'd like to illustrate is that in-game advertising can limit the creativity of not only developers, but also the players. Advertisers can impose restrictions on the game by their ad dollars that wouldn't otherwise exist. These artificial limitations can ruin the carefully crafted immersion the developer intended. It's the equivalent of an invisible wall: Nothing in the game world suggests the limitation exists and its existence frustrates adventurous players.