EA is prototyping in-game ads even as we speak
theverge.com
theverge.com
Nope, you don't own anything these days. You purchased a license subject to terms and conditions. Not endorsing this, but that's how it works.
Advertising is very much an assault on the user. It's tolerated today, but let's call it what it is; brainwashing, exploitation, manipulation, theft.
The business model for the most popular games now is that they are free to download and play, but they monetize through loot boxes and aesthetic skins. And now ads.
Like with news, it is hard to compete with free+ads.
Ad impressions alone might pay for a product you threw $0 at.
Hate ad-infested games? Then don't buy OR play those, period.
But as of now, they can just push the limits slowly and easily and look at how much public whining happens to gauge if they can get away with it
I'll play devils advocate and say in-game ads aren't terrible if they're in the background and aren't immersion breaking, for example if I were playing a racing game and drove past a Coca Cola billboard I wouldn't be bothered. Without Coca Cola's sponsorship the developers would have invented their own fake product to put on the billboard anyway.
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/game-platforms/funcom-massive-...
Especially in this case, the future will talk more about the engagement, conversion, impressions, clicks, etc related to in-game ads, and not how to creatively integrate the ads in the game in a fun way
There is no place for advertising in a civilized future. It's not Ok. It's a type of crime I think.
Some ads are ok. Advertising as a concept is very broad.
As most honest people will tell (one recent example I've stumbled upon could be independent game developers) - you could have a great product, but sadly most people will not know about it or will be "too busy to try it", and will prefer sticking to their habits or past experiences.
How would you go about solving this issue in a reliable way, that's not prone to similar distortions and hijacking as advertising and public relations ?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration-exploitation_dilem...
My answer is simple: there might be a reason that X exists, although it could take different forms and have different rules and methodology.
You reply with an equally black-and-white point : "so you're saying they're saints and no one would be able to do anything without their existence".
This is lazy and boring, do better.
I think there was very little truth in your first reply it reads like an excuse for an exploitive business model. I'm assuming you're a marketer or just like playing devil's advocate.
In any case, time has come to find technical solutions to hit back at advertising to the degree the industry can never recover.
To be honest I started a few years ago interacting with comments I would otherwise ignore because I thought it was harmful to keep yourself in filter bubbles, but I think it's pointless and I'm mostly having negative experiences that I don't need in my life.
To address your points: I'm not a marketer, I've got a STEM masters degree and I work as a data analyst, never worked in any marketing related job so far, no interest to do so.
You bring a decent point that often advertising isn't something people want, it's rather something they have to accept because they're paying either zero or less than the producer wants/needs for the service they're using, which I think is a fine point. We could go back to a point in time where most things were not financed by ads: either they're financially viable or they don't exist. That's a tradeoff, and companies like Netflix tried to move away from this and found some success. But it seems to me in a lot of situations most people are fine with the old radio station model where you get a few ads every now and then but don't pay anything.
If we decide to go this way and make it impossible to fund most of your company or activity through ads, then we'll have a lot less ads, but still won't reach zero ads. Think of the very old ads in the newspaper kind of thing. People need to send information about things they're selling or jobs they need, or events that might interest people. You're bound to have some advertising, you probably just mean to say you would like to have much much less than the current level.
What do you think about craigslist? Should it be banned?
Nobody defend yt or mobile game-likr advertisements. Ads comes in many forms, steam storefront page is another example of good (imo, ymmv) ads.
If you really think ads are not by definition intrusive, I am curious to reconsider my stance.
Ads also comes in a form of storefront banner. By your definition, then there shouldn't be McDonald's logo on top of their shop's front door. So how can you know that building is a McDonald's?
Yes, it is generally intrusive and non consensual. But if you say nobody ask for ads, you're very wrong. If you're going to a forum to get game recommendations, you're looking to be advertised. Steam recommend section or hot deals or storefront page are all advertisement. Game trailers are advertisement. They just don't really feel as intrusive as yt ads, and an example of good ads in my book.