Ben was speaking ahead of Battlefield Play4Free, EA’s latest free to play game. Its predecessor, Battlefield Heroes, contained both in game advertising as well as microtransactions. As he put it they “hedged their bets” and focused on creating revenue from multiple streams, a move that in the end created one system which yielded a large return and another which didn’t take off so well.
Micro transactions are becoming popular among developers because they encourage players to spend real money in order to access more advanced features. It isn’t just Facebook games that are adopting this stance of extra content, Valve’s popular FPS Team Fortress 2 recently implemented a similar microtransaction system which allowed gamers to purchase specific in-game items for real money.
Ben was careful not to write off in game ads, stating that correct implementation can have positive benefits.
In-game advertising is when developers create in-game space to sell real life brands. Advertisers pay for their brand to appear in game so extra money is generated. Sometimes this is as seamless as an advertising billboard, but others can be more intrusive, like a logo or specific mention of said brand. The debate around their presence has always been how intrusive they are in the gaming world. It’s fine seeing an advertisement for cars in Burnout: Paradise, but did American voters really need to see a campaign banner for Barack Obama’s presidential election? It’s this sort of questionable implementation that raises doubts about the effectiveness of in-game advertising.
Can you recall any of the in-game ads you’ve seen recently? Do you think in-game ads are intrusive? Do you prefer the microtransaction model employed by developers?
EA’s Battlefield Play4Free is expected to launch in March 2011 on the PC.
Source: Next-Gen
