Is advergaming automatically anti-consumer?

[tripletopper]

I tried arguing this on quora and all I got one person to bite and he just said stop playing video games.

 

I actually like the intellivision Amico being a pro-consumer system.  With features like forbidding paid downloads, fairly well balanced multi player games, $10 us maximum price tag on games (to discourage those games which start at $60 and can go up to $200 if you buy all the DLC) Tommy Talarico is positioning himself to be the Anti Big Boy or the Rebel of the video game industry.

 

I remember the story of the Xbox 360 where Microsoft made a pledge where all games on the 360 that don't have a physical disk equivalent in the market that are available for download must have a try before you buy free sample portion.

 

That was pretty Pro consumer.  I was more willing to try games if I didn't have to make the initial investment in the blind.  And the ones I wanted right then and there I bought right away immediately like Super Meat Boy, Limbo, Braid.  And usually they were full price if it was that good of a game.  Some games I waited to see if they came on sale to see if I could buy.  I would have never been exposed to those games if it hadn't been for Microsoft's try before you buy requirement.

 

Unfortunately developers and publishers complained that their work was being played for free without them getting paid.  I understand that all the parts have to be willing to play with each other in order to get something going.  It's that developers didn't have the right to have their game being in the shadows, and have a caveat emptor policy at the game store. (which you can thank 2600 Pac-Man and 2,600 ET for.  Before, these stores had very liberal return policies and were very rarely acted upon.    That's when Video Game Exchange came into business.  It wasn't until later that Funcoland came in our region .)

 

So I thought how do you get the developers that publishers get their money for the work they did on the demo while at the same time removing the shadows that are underneath the game shops?  I thought advertising would be a way to do that.

 

If you play the demo version of the game you get an ad.  Play the demo version over and over, play different ads each time and give the devs and pubs more money.

 

Interestingly enough one of my friends says that ads are very anti-consumer.

 

I told him I thought the policy of unreturnable items that are caveat emptor is a worse consumer policy than no ads.

 

I asked him if he bought a game that was download only for 60 bucks played it like literally one time and hated it, how would he fee?  He just said "I'd say oh well".

 

a logical argument that apply to a lot of people but not to me was that a lot of people have a lot more money than time and are willing to pay to skip ads.

 

And I said well if we gave the consumer the choice whether they wanted to pay with their dollars or pay with their eyeball time, if the game plays the same both ways how does that affect you as a paid consumer of a game?  He couldn't give me an answer I'd understand.

 

I do agree that there are abuses of ad policy.  like I know they cut the full original length of the first broadcast and the disc version of a tv series just squeeze in an extra commercial to make it more enticing on second run syndication and basic cable.

 

I pointed out a successful example of an advergame on the 360 when they had the "no shadow" policy.  It was 1 vs 100 Online.  Every 10 questions they take a 2 minute break and 1/4 of each of  those 2-minute breaks was always a Sprint commercial.  The only reason it suddenly stopped was because using cellular internet as a primary home internet and or gaming internet was being discouraged by the FCC at the time.  Sprint had no reason to offer the game as a way to spread their message because the exact people they were targeting became illegal to target / were no longer worth targeting in this distorted marketplace.

 

Why are cable tv plans so expensive?Because people are using DVRs to skip the commercials.

 

Guess why commercials would bring in more money for less occurrences on games than cable TV?  Because in order for a game to make sense the game has to be played live.  You cannot digitally delay or time advance a particular playing of a game.  You could not download the future opponent inputs for game.  Those inputs have to happen in real time.  If not, then we discovered data time travel and would get negative ping times, and then finally satellite internet would be a viable option for gamers. But since I haven't seen any news about data time travel, I'll assume it's impossible until it's proven  possible.

 

Actually it's much harder to take a pee break in the middle of an online game than it is a linear piece of entertainment that could be paused backed up and resumed.  If you're not back in 30 seconds you could be a sitting duck.

 

However I agree that mid-gameplay commercials would ruin online gaming especially if they paused to break and cliffhanger like they do linear entertainment.

 

And one final thing that's interesting to note, some people are afraid to give their credit card numbers.  So free advertising funded gaming can actually help bring those people too.  And the thing is  money is made on a per credit basis, not a per license purchase basis.

 

If Tommy Talarico thinks his games are going to be played many times, and his games will be played way longer in history than a typical "movie games" that PlayStation and Xbox seem to cater to, then wouldn't it be to the benefit of the new Intellivision Company if they make more money with never asking for credit cards and having all games be free with ads, than they would make by asking for credit cards and charging them once and having the games played over and over with no constant stream in?

 

Of course you got to tighten your belt on day one.  But that's perpetual residual income if it gets played over and over and over.

 

and when your money gets bigger you could like all for a certain percentage for an annual Online Tournament of Champions.  since you don't have to pay for the ROM in order to be eligible to win because the game is free then you can get away with more luck elements than you could with a pure skill game where you have to pay to enter,  and it would be legal in more jurisdictions than such a skill game.

 

Also that's how devs and pubs get extra money to pay for new features.  That's also the cure for both downloaditis and  sequelitis, the disease of malignantly growing paid DLC /  a sequel of something as a quick cash grab.  Since the money is there a certain budget could be made for upgrades.

 

I understand that all parts have to work with each other for the boat to get moving.

 

I think this advergaming model might be beneficial to everyone.

 

Are there still people who preferred pay yet you don't want to abandon the Advergaming model? Have a purchasable no-ad forever license/ timed no-ad license rental.

 

unless someone could show how someone has a ludistic advantage by either being an advergamer or a cash license gamer, giving the customer the choice to either pay with dollars or minutes of ad time gets more people playing and more money made with less money taken from the customers should not harm gaming.

 

I agree that Tommy Talarico opposes ads because they can be abused.  But he does have policies that he said he's not going to flinch.  If he opposes excessive/experience-ruining/ unfair uses of ads, but not ads in principle, he could make some decrees that would discourage cheap advergaming.

 

by the way ever since one versus 100 left Xbox 360,  try getting an advertising funded game on either Xbox Nintendo or Playstation.  most of their "free games" are those that  are "free until it becomes painfully impossible to complete forcing you to buy something that all but the top one out of a million need in order to complete" games.  

 

I don't know if a declarative automatic no ads ever statement is exactly going against the grain of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft.  I think that's more "with the grain thinking" than it is "against the grain thinking".

 

You could make certain ad policies like "maximum 5 minutes of ads per hour of time" (which compared to syndication which could be 24 minutes of ads per hour of time is great.)  "Hardwired ads in game must make sense in the experience", like Budweiser Tapper, (wait would alcoholic mention rate it T or M automatically?  Not exactly that, unless it's Pepsi Max Tapper.)

 

Just because you offer ads as try before you buy sample  doesn't mean you have to have every single one available 24/7.  You could have a gaming Network called INTV.  We're either every hour or every day one game would rotate in  as the free Advergame.  also if you eventually add online, that would concentrate more people into that server therefore no one would be sitting there waiting for an opponent which is a general positive experience if you funnel everyone through that one hour a day.

 

also there could be schedules like a regular TV show so that if you could play online you can find more Network users of the game.

 

The worst thing that could turn people off to a game is crickets and tumbleweeds in the online waiting room.

 

I'm just spitballing a couple suggestions.

 

 

[zzip]

10 minutes ago, tripletopper said:

I tried arguing this on quora and all I got one person to bite and he just said stop playing video games.

 

I actually like the intellivision Amico being a pro-consumer system.  With features like forbidding paid downloads, fairly well balanced multi player games, $10 us maximum price tag on games (to discourage those games which start at $60 and can go up to $200 if you buy all the DLC) Tommy Talarico is positioning himself to be the Anti Big Boy or the Rebel of the video game industry.

 

I remember the story of the Xbox 360 where Microsoft made a pledge where all games on the 360 that don't have a physical disk equivalent in the market that are available for download must have a try before you buy free sample portion.

 

That was pretty Pro consumer.  I was more willing to try games if I didn't have to make the initial investment in the blind.  And the ones I wanted right then and there I bought right away immediately like Super Meat Boy, Limbo, Braid.  And usually they were full price if it was that good of a game.  Some games I waited to see if they came on sale to see if I could buy.  I would have never been exposed to those games if it hadn't been for Microsoft's try before you buy requirement.

 

Unfortunately developers and publishers complained that their work was being played for free without them getting paid.  I understand that all the parts have to be willing to play with each other in order to get something going.  It's that developers didn't have the right to have their game being in the shadows, and have a caveat emptor policy at the game store. (which you can thank 2600 Pac-Man and 2,600 ET for.  Before, these stores had very liberal return policies and were very rarely acted upon.    That's when Video Game Exchange came into business.  It wasn't until later that Funcoland came in our region .)

 

So I thought how do you get the developers that publishers get their money for the work they did on the demo while at the same time removing the shadows that are underneath the game shops?  I thought advertising would be a way to do that.

 

If you play the demo version of the game you get an ad.  Play the demo version over and over, play different ads each time and give the devs and pubs more money.

 

Interestingly enough one of my friends says that ads are very anti-consumer.

 

I told him I thought the policy of unreturnable items that are caveat emptor is a worse consumer policy than no ads.

 

I asked him if he bought a game that was download only for 60 bucks played it like literally one time and hated it, how would he fee?  He just said "I'd say oh well".

 

a logical argument that apply to a lot of people but not to me was that a lot of people have a lot more money than time and are willing to pay to skip ads.

 

And I said well if we gave the consumer the choice whether they wanted to pay with their dollars or pay with their eyeball time, if the game plays the same both ways how does that affect you as a paid consumer of a game?  He couldn't give me an answer I'd understand.

 

I do agree that there are abuses of ad policy.  like I know they cut the full original length of the first broadcast and the disc version of a tv series just squeeze in an extra commercial to make it more enticing on second run syndication and basic cable.

 

I pointed out a successful example of an advergame on the 360 when they had the "no shadow" policy.  It was 1 vs 100 Online.  Every 10 questions they take a 2 minute break and 1/4 of each of  those 2-minute breaks was always a Sprint commercial.  The only reason it suddenly stopped was because using cellular internet as a primary home internet and or gaming internet was being discouraged by the FCC at the time.  Sprint had no reason to offer the game as a way to spread their message because the exact people they were targeting became illegal to target / were no longer worth targeting in this distorted marketplace.

 

Why are cable tv plans so expensive?Because people are using DVRs to skip the commercials.

 

Guess why commercials would bring in more money for less occurrences on games than cable TV?  Because in order for a game to make sense the game has to be played live.  You cannot digitally delay or time advance a particular playing of a game.  You could not download the future opponent inputs for game.  Those inputs have to happen in real time.  If not, then we discovered data time travel and would get negative ping times, and then finally satellite internet would be a viable option for gamers. But since I haven't seen any news about data time travel, I'll assume it's impossible until it's proven  possible.

 

Actually it's much harder to take a pee break in the middle of an online game than it is a linear piece of entertainment that could be paused backed up and resumed.  If you're not back in 30 seconds you could be a sitting duck.

 

However I agree that mid-gameplay commercials would ruin online gaming especially if they paused to break and cliffhanger like they do linear entertainment.

 

And one final thing that's interesting to note, some people are afraid to give their credit card numbers.  So free advertising funded gaming can actually help bring those people too.  And the thing is  money is made on a per credit basis, not a per license purchase basis.

 

If Tommy Talarico thinks his games are going to be played many times, and his games will be played way longer in history than a typical "movie games" that PlayStation and Xbox seem to cater to, then wouldn't it be to the benefit of the new Intellivision Company if they make more money with never asking for credit cards and having all games be free with ads, than they would make by asking for credit cards and charging them once and having the games played over and over with no constant stream in?

 

Of course you got to tighten your belt on day one.  But that's perpetual residual income if it gets played over and over and over.

 

and when your money gets bigger you could like all for a certain percentage for an annual Online Tournament of Champions.  since you don't have to pay for the ROM in order to be eligible to win because the game is free then you can get away with more luck elements than you could with a pure skill game where you have to pay to enter,  and it would be legal in more jurisdictions than such a skill game.

 

Also that's how devs and pubs get extra money to pay for new features.  That's also the cure for both downloaditis and  sequelitis, the disease of malignantly growing paid DLC /  a sequel of something as a quick cash grab.  Since the money is there a certain budget could be made for upgrades.

 

I understand that all parts have to work with each other for the boat to get moving.

 

I think this advergaming model might be beneficial to everyone.

 

Are there still people who preferred pay yet you don't want to abandon the Advergaming model? Have a purchasable no-ad forever license/ timed no-ad license rental.

 

unless someone could show how someone has a ludistic advantage by either being an advergamer or a cash license gamer, giving the customer the choice to either pay with dollars or minutes of ad time gets more people playing and more money made with less money taken from the customers should not harm gaming.

 

I agree that Tommy Talarico opposes ads because they can be abused.  But he does have policies that he said he's not going to flinch.  If he opposes excessive/experience-ruining/ unfair uses of ads, but not ads in principle, he could make some decrees that would discourage cheap advergaming.

 

by the way ever since one versus 100 left Xbox 360,  try getting an advertising funded game on either Xbox Nintendo or Playstation.  most of their "free games" are those that  are "free until it becomes painfully impossible to complete forcing you to buy something that all but the top one out of a million need in order to complete" games.  

 

I don't know if a declarative automatic no ads ever statement is exactly going against the grain of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft.  I think that's more "with the grain thinking" than it is "against the grain thinking".

 

You could make certain ad policies like "maximum 5 minutes of ads per hour of time" (which compared to syndication which could be 24 minutes of ads per hour of time is great.)  "Hardwired ads in game must make sense in the experience", like Budweiser Tapper, (wait would alcoholic mention rate it T or M automatically?  Not exactly that, unless it's Pepsi Max Tapper.)

 

Just because you offer ads as try before you buy sample  doesn't mean you have to have every single one available 24/7.  You could have a gaming Network called INTV.  We're either every hour or every day one game would rotate in  as the free Advergame.  also if you eventually add online, that would concentrate more people into that server therefore no one would be sitting there waiting for an opponent which is a general positive experience if you funnel everyone through that one hour a day.

 

also there could be schedules like a regular TV show so that if you could play online you can find more Network users of the game.

 

The worst thing that could turn people off to a game is crickets and tumbleweeds in the online waiting room.

 

I'm just spitballing a couple suggestions.

 

 

In my experience,  gamers will complain bitterly about every software pricing practice under the sun, but then turn around and spare no expense to have the latest hardware to play the games on.

 

It's almost like since software is code and not very tangible, they don't value it very highly and feel like they are constantly being ripped off.  But hardware is tangible.   Never mind that big AAA games have budgets in the tens of millions or even hundreds of millions that must be recouped.

 

Personally,  I'm OK with paid DLC or cosmetic microtransactions because it's optional, and I don't have to pay.   I rarely pay for micro-transactions. I only buy DLC if I enjoyed the rest of the game.  Also I buy most games on sale, so I almost never pay anything close to full retail.

 

I'm not crazy about the idea of ads in games-  I guess maybe if it only happen in demo fine.

[tripletopper]

So we have ads in required demos to satisfy the people who say "buying in the blind" in a Caveat Emptor is anti-consumer like me.

 

I understand that some of Tommy's practices and statements were to limit "movie games" (what you call AAA games.  I don't think they're necessarily the best to the best I think they're more movie than game hence the term movie games.)

 

I understand certain things would make better sense as a paid purchase  and DLC like movie games.  But for more ludo-centric games (games that are primarily about the gameplay and not the story) where you can't return it if you hate it, the demo with ads or a model of revenue based 100% on ads would make more sense especially if you're expecting the people to play it over and over.

 

so someone came out in the open and said "my game is a totally free game paid for by advertising with only 5 minutes of video advertising per hour of gameplay, and we won't be so cheap to put an ad anywhere except between obvious ' ludo stops,' (like between hands in a card game)  and a certain percentage of that money will be raised to fund free updates and new features and another certain percentage will be used to fund an annual Online tournament of champions that is free for anyone to enter", does that sound less anti-consumer than ads are in most places.

 

And yes I understand the Sugar Rush of day one sales.  But just like my weight loss my doing nothing but changing from sugary drinks to Pepsi Max, slow and steady get you a lifetime change versus a starvation binge that would be compensated for by an eating binge.

 

Also if you have a constant stream, you don't need the day one sugar rush.  You just have to prepare for it as you go along.  And cash paid tournaments of Champions that you don't have to pay any money to enter or keep long-term interest in the game without releasing an inferior sequel that is considered a separate paid license.

 

I agree that Tommy Talarico is trying to be anti big boy, anti-movie game, Pro consumer, Pro neo retro game style.

 

And the reasons why he States the "no ad policy" is because he believes a blanket statement like that is pro-consumer.

 

And I know based on history there's enough ad hatred where that could win some points.  However if my hypothetical game came out with the pledge I came with that sounds pretty pro-consumer, he'd have to abandon his original pledge and apologize and say we were just against heavy abuses of advertising.  If he liked my voluntary restraint,  he would have agreed that,  assuming I stay within the limits I set for my game,  that this is a pro consumer pricing policy.

 

Then he can make pledges like "no double dipping.  Either pick a paid license model or an advergaming model.  don't do both.  Adergaming is okay for free demos to demonstrate your game and encourage sales and to make money for devs and pubs if the demo is played over and over."

 

"Any game that was bought on a paid license will not be taken away because of this change of ad policy.  You could play the game as much as you want for as long as you want and be guaranteed of no ads."

 

Most of the things we talk about that we hate are good if used in reasonable degrees, but can be overused and therefore abused.

 

Also the point of the $10 limit is to avoid movie games being attractive on Amico.

 

I'm just saying if Nintendo Sony Microsoft have hard no-ad policies, how is it being consumer friendly,  being the exact same way the big three are?  

 

 

 

[youxia]

I don't really know what this OP is about, sorry, not too coherent. What I do know is that any company which puts any sort of advertising or monetising into the actual game should burn in the videogaming hell.

 

The first one that I recall was Bioware with that obnoxius NPC who asked for your credit card DA: Origins. The latest I've seen is Far Cry Arcade. If people don't oppose this crap it will surely creep into more and more games. So, dear suits, do whatever you want outside of the game, which means you can even put the link to your stupid store into the menu, but please do GTFO of my gameplay.

 

[tripletopper]

3 minutes ago, youxia said:

I don't really know what this OP is about, sorry, not too coherent. What I do know is that any company which puts any sort of advertising or monetising into the actual game should burn in the videogaming hell.

 

The first one that I recall was Bioware with that obnoxius NPC who asked for your credit card DA: Origins. The latest I've seen is Far Cry Arcade. If people don't oppose this crap it will surely creep into more and more games. So, dear suits, do whatever you want outside of the game, which means you can even put the link to your stupid store into the menu, but please do GTFO of my gameplay.

 

On the original post was about a hypothetical game which would be the way I would release a game.  My game would be totally free with no credit cards or PayPal accounts or anything worth of value asked by me.  It'll be advertising funded, but have certain voluntary restrictions to prevent over-advertising and advertising that disrupts the gaming universe.  If I had for example 5 minutes of advertising for every hour, and assuming less ads are more consumer friendly,  that beats syndicated first run by at least four times and Prime Time TV by at least three times.

 

Then with that money I reserve certain revenue portions for two things. One is for updates and future versions and new features that will be totally free, and another portion will be reserved for an annual play online tournament.  Where you earn in-game currency throughout the year by playing the game, and then those would be the chips you wager against real life humans in that exact same game during the tournament.  Those chips have no monetary value until you place in a good enough slot to win.

 

Again because we don't ask for credit card it would be free for all and no advantage would be given to someone who wants to pay for an advantage.  The only money we'll take is money from advertisers.

 

As far as pub/dev/system owners relationships  they will take whatever share of those revenues come.  Instead of taking say 20% of sales they'll take 20% of ad revenue. It's not meant as a dodging of system licensing rules or publisher criteria.

 

Game experience, multiple plays over the year and doing well in the game will give you a currency advantage in the tournament.  This is rewarding good and loyal players.  Also more jurisdictions will accept the contest and they'd make less restrictions on the types of games that could be made if there's no payment to play the game.in about 30 plus US states anything with anything random is illegal to pay money for it hopes of trying to win more money.  so even if it's enough of a game of chance to be considered illegal in most States it would be legal because we're not asking any entry fee except 30 seconds of eyeball time every so often.  And no one has more eyeball tine than anyone else, you keep generating it as you use it until the day you die.

[HoshiChiri]

If there's one thing I've learned in my life of retail work, it's this: Businesses Expect Exponential Growth. Forever. It's not just enough to make money, you have to make more money than the year before. But eventually, you'll hit the plateau of what your customers will pay- so you start cutting corners or introducing new ways to squeeze that extra bit more out.

 

Ad-based gaming could start out with all the bright promises of 'we won't overdo it, it'll be fair, & you'll never HAVE to pay'- but it won't matter. Eventually the push from investors/developers/anyone tied to your company, really, will erode those ideals & bring us an ad-filled abomination. Case in point: mobile games. They literally did what you say! Old games were free, just watch an ad every couple stages. Now look at them- I downloaded one called 3D match on my mom's recommendation. Mid-stage ads, between stage ads, ads for getting items/gold... it costs SIX DOLLARS to drop the ads! Which might be worth it if they didn't also charge you for power-ups AND to access the gold you earn while playing! It's a mess.

 

I can't get behind ad-based gaming, there's just too much room for it to go very, very wrong.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

9 hours ago, tripletopper said:

I'm just spitballing a couple suggestions.

 

?

 

[tripletopper]

I agree, if your business model is to exponentially grow and grow to the point of dominating towards 100% the market, then ad based gaming is an albatross.

 

But my goal was residual income.  A constant money that comes in as long as the game is being played.

 

A game's job,  in my view, is an inanimate objects earning a wage in your place.

 

It's a general view if capitalism as a mathematical explanation, and Captialism as a game to defeat your opponents.

 

One of the laws is that one person's gain is not necessarily another's loss,  and usually isn't.  Everyone day is better vs yesterday.

 

The number one internal enemy of capitalism is a monopoly.  If someone is too big, and no one can take their place, you have a corporate emperor.

 

 

I think if Tommy Tallarico would agree that ads are an ABUSED tool, but within certain limits are acceptable, then maybe we have something.

 

If he can stick to his guns on a $10 price limit on games, then 5 minutes of ads per gameplay hour would be good limit to fund new free games/add ons, fund tournaments, and keep a constant healthy income stream.

 

Combined with a "pick your payment plan" clause,  that sounds attractive to ludocentric games and less attractive to mythocentric games.

 

Mythocentric games assume you will eventually quit, either be completing the story, 100%ing the game, or quitting out of frustration or boredom. That's why they sell you more when you're done.

 

Games has one advantage TV doesn't, a lack of a schedule.  You choose when you play, therefore a conclusion does not have to be forced unless a constant stalemate with no progress or regress is boring, which it usually is, or there is no natural end.

 

The reason BTW why I'm highly concerned about constant income streams is because if I get rich enough to be thrown off Social Security Disability it better not just be a one time paycheck.

 

If you believe your games are meant to be put in the shelf forever and replaced, like big AAA game companies do then ads make no sense.  But if you believe your games will stand the test of time, then the ad model asks nothing of the consumer expect  30 seconds of ad time every 6 minutes.  And the more they partake the more pay generated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Keatah]

I'll never adopt the idea of ad-supported gaming in any way, shape, or form. The original model of buying a game for 20 or 30 bucks and always having it is the best way. I also support the shareware concept. Pay a couple a bucks (or free) for the first levels, then purchase the full game for full price.

 

If your game is so shitty that you have to have it force its way into a consumer's wallet, well, then rethink your fucking game.

 

I do not support mega $60 + $100s-in-DLC model. Not my problem if your studio spent a billion dollars on production. Quit whining.

 

All this prancing around and experimenting made videogames a whipping boy, a tool, a method to dig your wallet. Not like the old days of cartridge-in-a-box, or disk-in-a-baggie.

[HoshiChiri]

 

4 hours ago, tripletopper said:

If you believe your games are meant to be put in the shelf forever and replaced, like big AAA game companies do then ads make no sense.  But if you believe your games will stand the test of time, then the ad model asks nothing of the consumer expect  30 seconds of ad time every 6 minutes.  And the more they partake the more pay generated.

And that might work great- while YOU'RE in charge. You do mention social security, which implies you intend to retire someday. What if your successor isn't so resolute? What if they're willing to bend the morals a lil' bit to prove they too can generate income- better income, even!

 

Small businesses can make something like this work- a pro-corporate tool applied with prudence for customer gain. But the second other people can grab the handle, it's only a matter of time before someone uses it like a hammer & beats the customer base for pennies.

 

Sometimes the most pro-consumer thing you can do, is just keep the most abuseable options out altogether.

[zzip]

One other thing to remember..   whoever pays the bills is the actual customer.

 

If the gamer paid for the game,  then the developers are going to work harder to please the gamers.

 

If the game is ad-supported, then advertisers are the customer, and gamers are the products they are paying to reach and maybe harvest data from.    Developers are going to bend to what the advertisers want whether its best for the gamer or not.

[godslabrat]

There really isn't a shortage of extremely cheap ($10 or less) games available.  Looking at my Switch library right now, I have seven of them.  More if you count re-releases of games from other platforms.  None of them have ads.  They're all really good games, too.  I'm certain the other systems have a similar number of cheap, quality, ad-free games.  Mobile too.

 

I realize digital marketplaces are crowded spaces, and it takes effort to read reviews or watch gameplay videos.  But if the central point is that you have more time than money, that's covered.

 

I hate ad-driven games, but from what I can see, they're only a problem if you want them to be.  

Edited January 15, 2021 by godslabrat

[sirlynxalot]

I hate in-game transactions and advertisements unless they are incidental - like its a racing game and the billboards on the racetrack are advertising other real life videogames by the manufacture (EA did this in some of the Burnout games).

 

I really miss the days when the conventional model was that the user could download an abbreviated demo of the game or get a demo on a console demo disc with only a fraction of the levels/content of the full version. That allowed me to know if I liked what the game had to offer and helped me make a full price purchase for the full game.  This still happens somewhat, but I don't see limited demos like this nearly as much as I used to. Plenty of full price games on steam that appear to have no demo version to try.

[tripletopper]

I think we all agreed that it's a matter of degree.

 

Tommy did say that, at the limits I suggested, it is a good idea. Just currently, and, considering the promises he made, not a good idea for HIS system.

 

The main consumer thing I was concerned about was "buying in the blind."  thankfully most of these retro games you could probably get a good idea of what most of it is so that you'll rarely have complaints about holding the sack.

 

Or in the case of the Nintendo Switch you wait till it goes on like 75% off sale of an already cheap price and you basically  think of it as a purchase for the price of a rental.

 

it was interesting that Tommy said that one of his main selling point is that every game must have a multiplayer version.  My case just happened to  prompt him to say that every game also always must have a single player version so that you don't require a spouse / kid / sibling / parent / local friend in order to play.

 

I just wanted to see that if reasonable self checks were put in place, that advertising and video games, if not abused, CAN be a pro consumer model.

 

And I also accurately stated all the abuses that could come, like more minutes of commercial time per time of content, advertising which disrupts the gaming universe/experience, cliffhanger advertising which would alter the game ludistically.

 

oh by the way compromising with content is only if you design a game towards a specific sponsor.  If you follow the broadcast TV commercial model, where you have definite content points and definite commercial breaks with a fade to black, advertisers have less power over the show unless it's something really controversial.

 

Heck Rush Limbaugh survived for 30 plus years mainly because he doesn't join multi show commercial pools he has his own specific advertising group.

 

Either you advertise on his show because you  like his show and/or thing his typical listeners are an audience you want to advertise to , or you don't because you don't.

[zzip]

37 minutes ago, tripletopper said:

oh by the way compromising with content is only if you design a game towards a specific sponsor.  If you follow the broadcast TV commercial model, where you have definite content points and definite commercial breaks with a fade to black, advertisers have less power over the show unless it's something really controversial.

These days it doesn't even have to be all that controversial to make advertisers nervous.  A few people getting a hashtag trending on twitter might be enough

[Keatah]

3 hours ago, tripletopper said:

I think we all agreed that it's a matter of degree.

It's an absolute for me. And I like it that way.

 

As far as this Tommy Tellarico stuff goes. Whatever happens happens. If it fits my philosophy and has games I like, I'll buy it. But for now it's all speculation. It isn't on the shelf yet. It isn't at retail yet.

[godslabrat]

21 minutes ago, Keatah said:

It's an absolute for me. And I like it that way.

 

As far as this Tommy Tellarico stuff goes. Whatever happens happens. If it fits my philosophy and has games I like, I'll buy it. But for now it's all speculation. It isn't on the shelf yet. It isn't at retail yet.

And seeing as we're now looking at August at the soonest, a lot can change on the software front between now and then.

[Tanooki]

Wow that was a nice chapter to read in that first post, and well.  What would I do?  I'd look into a mix of the distant gaming past, but also the online present.  I find it a bit of a mystery, but perhaps a large shovel of hypocrisy with whiny game makers.  Maybe the MS deal of try before you buy was before this occurred online, but you are aware that like games on Steam give you I believe 2-4 hours of time on them and if you hate it, you essentially can click the support button, click the I want a refund choice, click a choice/state a reason whatever it was, and they lock the game down and pop the money back into your PP/credit card acct right then and there.  I don't see Steam being steamrolled by the usual suspects with Capcom, Konami, Ubi, EA, etc bitching about freebies.

 

So maybe Tommy would benefit from using what works, and what he could call out for hypocrisy too, the steam model, as far as payment-try before you buy plans go?  Another choice, and this is looking back to look forward -- re-introduce SHAREWARE!  Seriously.  A lot of games these days you have worlds, lands, campaigns with chapters, whatever...they're not just some fluid A to Z it's over adventure, there are broken in pauses.  Maybe it's the broken away maps in a Mario64/Rayman 2 type setup, or your campaign/chapters you find in Doom/Quake/CoD old to new era stuff, whatever the case.  Let people download the full game, let the first chapter/campaign or two be played depending on the total distance said game has, and then have the classic shareware popup panel of... hey did you love it?  Want to play more?  Love to finally stomp hellspawn/Hitler/some crack heads ass?  BUY NOW!

 

I think that could work, excellently so not just on his cheap platform of $10 priced and under games, though far more easier to accept mind you, but even on full size retail games too.  That bait dangling worked for a long time before the internet got so prolific back into even those dial up days.   You spent the time downloading, testing, re-playing, getting good... drool sets in and you want more, and wham ...cool I can buy another 80% of this game for $30 more.  Hell yeah!!

 

It's honest, it's transparent.  There's no sleaze.  No shitty in game ads, no marketplaces in a game you paid in full for items you may need to really finish it for even more cash, hiding worlds, courses, stages, whatever on a danmed paywall, scummy slowly being banned gambling loot boxes and the rest.  If you want to play the addiction card and not set off people the wrong way, use the old way, no surprises, and no scummy stunts.  I think those 2 options are both the only really viable ones that are pro-consumer.  There's no traps involved, either a time frame of free-before you hit cancel like Steam does, or use the shareware method, both give a true taste, not a lame tweaked demo or other shenanigans.

[Video]

Eh. I didn't read that whole wall of text, but what I did read sounds like your essentially suggesting the big boys do what Android (and I assume Apple) does. Most games, if for sale, are cheap, usually sub $5, though in recent years some are creeping up. Also most have a free version, that's got adds, and paid versions that dont.

 

I don't see this as anti consumer myself. Try it before you buy it is great. If the games not your style, don't buy it. If it is, you can opt to buy it to unteather it from adds, or just deal with the adds for the free version, letting Coca-Cola (or whoever) foot the bill. Sounds like a win for everybody to me.

 

The only makers who have a problem with this are likely making trash or me too hacks, and those don't do well regardless of physical, digital, sale, or free.

[tripletopper]

Xbox 360 had free try before you buy, but devs and pubs felt their work was played over and over with no money for the free plays.

 

That's the Xbox One dropped that requirement.

 

Maybe try before you buy could be sponsored by commercials.  Or in theory the whole game can can be try before you buy, and you can buy an "ad-free license".

 

Some people don't complain about commercials.  In fact Super Bowl advertisers say lots of viewers treat it as "advertainment".  The people who watch the Super Bowl and have never played or cheerled at an organized pre-adolescent level will probably go to the bathroom while the players are play, but will hold their wee for a commercial.  Heck, some people seem out and search to find previews)trailers for movies and games as 2 minute preliminary material all year long.

 

I think most people are mature enough to understand the difference between content and the message will be right back after these messages and know that the stuff in the middle has nothing to do with the show until it says "and now back to the show.". I agree that in-universe advertising if done wrong, which is usually twice as often wrong  as it's done right to be generous to advertisers, ruins a game.

 

Also it makes the ads independent.  Advertisers have less influence on shows if the shows and advertisements are in two distinct separated parts.  (Obviously zero commercials means you deal directly with people.) That was compared to the old 50s and 60s variety shows and game shows which are sponsored by Texaco and a whole bunch of cigarette companies.  In the 2000s Game Show Network were showing black and white game shows with the cigarette commercials intact. I think they cracked down on those sometime in the teens because now they split that part of the show off as a federal legislation.

 

Spoiler

Sylvania TVs were the big prize on Beat the Clock, back when a TV was almost as expensive as a car, both around the four figure range.  And if you saw a couple of those shows it was obvious.  They took a picture when someone got a mess with a Sylvania flash bulb with "blue dot for sure shot".

 

the reason why they didn't charge for TV was cuz A) TV sets were very expensive back then and B) no one had a mechanism to charge people by the show.

 

Video games suffered from the opposite syndrome some people might have gone with advice games except for the fact when you only have 64k most advertisers could probably not get an ideal message out.

 

Since pinball was using coin op,

That's why arcade games use Coin Op.

 

So I was thinking if this.  if 2 to 4 years from now Tommy decides to review Netroames and believes it's reasonably feasible to accomplish like Keith Robinson did and Steve Roney thought if you had enough speed for 3G or higher you could do it. (Which Sprint firm confirmed was the case).  Then since you have to establish a direct connection with push to talk, maybe whenever you change games or change opponents or boot fresh you get one or two commercials to start the game to pay for the networking service of this game using my Netrogames, and then once you get in the game you play uninterrupted until you either turn it off or you decide to play different game or you decide to play the same game against a different human opponent online.  Because a new human means you have to reestablish a connection to that be the perfect excuse to show commercials.

 

With push to talk you're going to waste 30 seconds for each connection established, so instead of reading the words "now waiting" you get an ad that might be entertaining that is totally independent of the game and could actually make netrogames a free way to turn old games online and make money for the game makers.

 

But there'd be no ads for single player play or local multiplayer play either.  So the commercials are purely for the networking.

 

by the way the last reason why I said commercials would work is because if you want to give away money to the players that's probably the only way you could legally do it is by offering the game totally free and funneling certain percentage of commercial money into a jackpot that's given annually to the top so many people who do well.  of course to help them during the tournament throughout the year you get more ships to work with the more you play and win when it's not championship time which encourages more advertisements which builds up the pot which makes the game more interesting.

 

They're very specific things you can do to have people pay to play to win money but if anything is considered random or arbitrary pick then it's illegal in a lot of  jurisdictions to charge money in order to give a chance to win money.

 

 

 

I think if one limits advertising to games to 3 cases that would not violate Tommy talarico's no commercial pledge on purchases of games,.

 

1 is try before you buy could have independent commercials that are not hardwired into the game.  Xbox devs and pubs refuse to support Xbox unless they got rid of the rule that you must have a try before you buy.  ads on try before you buy mode would be a compromise that doesn't violate Tommy's promises.

2.  If Netrogames were to become real.  the advertisement only pertains to the connecting of the opponent and would be the price for playing games that were originally not meant to be multiplayer online into multiplayer online games and once you enter the game it's ad free until you leave the game or change opponents.  since it doesn't interrupt the game and it's going to be 30 seconds you're waiting for anyway to connect to people and it clearly only is applicable when you're playing head-to-head, cutthroat,  co-op, or team vs team  online.

3 is specifically trying to raise a jackpot to give away in a tournaments of Champions to avoid gambling rules, and not in a cheesy way like declaring an untransparent "skill game" and have unadvertised unexpected surprises, but instead making it free for all participants and being honest about the rules  and making money off ads is a way that you can legally raise money without tapping people's credit cards.  And for those games which are considered annual contests, you legally can't accept money for them. Eyeball time is the only form of payment that is legal in a tournament in many jurisdictions in the form that could be played withpretty much any game in the world.

 

I hope those would be three reasonable concessions that would not appear to violate Tommy talarico's no commercial pledge on purchased games. 

 

Of course since it's his system now,  he gets to say what he wants but, I thought alternative card games I made under the name triple topper would be played well if they were given totally for free online and add funded and some of that add funding would fund an annual tournament in playing those games.

 

a lot of those games are very similar to regular card games except my deck is a three-dimensional deck, with number coloring and suit all being independent, and it's considered an advanced version of the game at modifies.

 

Plus online  regular card games could go on this model too.  Adver gaming to raise money ever, no one pays, winners get money and the rest of the money go to the devs pubs and Tommy.

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by tripletopper

[pacman000]

If in-game ads are evil, then Tapper is evil, & I like Tapper.

 

Also, Shareware hasn’t gone anywhere; it’s just been overshadowed by online stores which do the same thing, only smoother.

[Mockduck]

Advertising is only anti-consumer if you measure pro-consumer based on how much or how little money you give the person or people who spent their time making the thing for you. Asking for money it NOT pro or anti consumer, this notion that somehow gamers should be lauded for not giving money to developers is ridiculous. Every time I see someone remark about how they aren't paying for their mobile game or that the free thing they are playing has ads I just cringe. I consider it pro-consumer to support a healthy environment where creative people can make a living by providing you the entertainment you spend hours of time with. 

 

Nowadays on too many platforms devs have two choices: 1. Free with ads/eCommerce layers 2. Charge for it. 1 gets you downloads, 2 gets you a tiny fraction of the downloads. 1 gets you enough money to survive, 2 does not. Guess which one people who want to pay their rent and buy food go for? 

 

Advergaming is very much pro-consumer by the measure of providing lots of free entertainment to you. It is only anti-consumer if you are unwilling to support them with a direct monetary payment and want it free without ads. 

[Mockduck]

Actually, one more bit but I can't really provide much detail due to professional NDA: I have seen some numbers on ad revenue on mobile for titles which while not top ten were top 200. It's peanuts, literally fractions of a penny per large number of views, and a slightly better fraction if someone clicks through, and a few cents if they then install. 

[tripletopper]

Remember I am not an absolutist on everything I advocate.

 

I was addressing specific devs concerns about the free samples requirement on the Xbox 360 when making a download only game,  where devs were making no money off samplers, where ads could raise some money for the devs and pubs.

 

And there was one successful advergaming console game,  Xbox 360's 1 vs 100.  Sprint stopped sponsoring it when the FCC regulated home use of Cellular, like WiMax was supposed to be.

 

No other CONSOLE game has been tried since,  AFAIK

 

I was just saying Xbox's compromise of a no refund policy requiring every non disc game have a try before you buy demo was brilliant,  but those making buffets out of samples made devs and pubs hate it.  The ad based free sample would have been a good compromise.  Makers get some money, but consumers get their free sample.

 

And for history, before 2600 Pac Man, video game refunds were VERY easy.  It could be open box and you would still get back 100% with a receipt.

 

Digital only makes takebacks even harder if there are no free samples.

[zzip]

20 hours ago, Mockduck said:

Advertising is only anti-consumer if you measure pro-consumer based on how much or how little money you give the person or people who spent their time making the thing for you. Asking for money it NOT pro or anti consumer, this notion that somehow gamers should be lauded for not giving money to developers is ridiculous. Every time I see someone remark about how they aren't paying for their mobile game or that the free thing they are playing has ads I just cringe. I consider it pro-consumer to support a healthy environment where creative people can make a living by providing you the entertainment you spend hours of time with.

As they say, if it's free then you are not the customer, you are the product...  

 

I see many gamers who have this "money is no object" attitude when it comes to hardware-  gotta have the latest $1,000 GPUs when they drop!   but complain bitterly when it comes to paying for software, like they are constantly getting ripped off by developers.

 

IDK, to me the $1000 GPU is a rip off