By the way, shouldn't this thread be located in the business forum? While co-branding in videogames involves game design issues, it seems to be primarily business-related.

I think as long as you don´t compromise gameplay you can pull off varying levels of depth or integration, the only limit is how far you want to go. Subtle product placement shouldn´t really be a problem at all, and with some creative work you should be able to do product placement at any level of the game.

The only line you mustn´t cross is where it impacts core gamplay - then people will notice it´s a filthy, money-driven adgame and be annoyed. As long as you don´t shove brand names down their throat, pretty much anything goes.

And I think I should feel mildly insulted at the implication that creative integrity and branding cannot be reconciled. I´ve worked on a number of adgames, some of which were good fun in their own right, some of which were little more than interactive billboards.
On all of them the goal was to get people to play them for as long as possible, and the only way you can do that is by providing something that´s fun.

I don´t buy into the "only when it´s free" thing, there´s much more to financing a game project that free/not free. It´s not about excuses - making games costs increasingly astronomical sums of money, which someone must shell out BEFORE the game can be sold. Tremendous risk. Every penny helps.
There are tons of promising games out there that never saw the light because the developers ran out of money somewhere along the way. And if some product placement will allow the devs to go a few months further and complete what otherwise wouldn´t have been completed, or fine-tune what would otherwise have been released as a bug-ridden abomination, then I´m all for it.

And to whoever said the thing about games not being about making money - in the most cases they are. Someone needs to pay the bills and I for one have rent to pay and food to buy.

Quote:

Original post by Hase The only line you mustn´t cross is where it impacts core gamplay - then people will notice it´s a filthy, money-driven adgame and be annoyed. As long as you don´t shove brand names down their throat, pretty much anything goes.

That's not quite true. Think of any Disney film or game: nearly all the content is an individual member of the brand hierarchy and product portfolio. Disney characters, for instance, are promoted and thus their related products (e.g., action figures, lunchboxes) are also promoted. Certainly, there is a minority view which verbally abuses marketing and anything even slightly related to capitalism; however, such a stance to take from a developer or producer perspective is neither profitable nor beneficial. Personally, I think the concept of "selling out" is immature, but that concept and the attitudes towards it are problems which designers and advertisers alike need to deal with before a decision to co-brand is made.

EverQuest 2 managed to impliment advertising without being extremely disruptive. If you type /pizza, it opens up Pizza Hut's webpage to place an online order. This is fairly bad in my opinion, because EverQuest 2 is still $15/month.

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus That's not quite true. Think of any Disney film or game: nearly all the content is an individual member of the brand hierarchy and product portfolio. Disney characters, for instance, are promoted and thus their related products (e.g., action figures, lunchboxes) are also promoted.

I disagree (or rather, I think we´re arguing the same point). I was making the capitalist statement for effect, but those are usually the reactions you get when something goes wrong with the integration of your branding.
It´s not so much about how much of your game content is branded, it´s more about how it affects gameplay. In a game that is branded at a late stage, this is fairly problematic, since whatever you do will tend to be more obvious and less well integrated - which may (or rather, will) cause reactings like the above.

Personally I think that an ingame pizza ordering service is a nice touch, especially since it´s completely optional and inobtrusive.

Another nice example that comes to mind is the EvE-Online store, here the whole thing worked in reverse. In-game there is a trade commodity called "quafe", allegedly some sort of softdrink. Now they have T-shirts, mousepads and even a softdring in their online-order store with that name. Nobody is complaining about that, since the items are part of the game world.
If done correclty, the same should be possible with brands that are not native to the game environment.

Has this been done before? I don't think anyone's really done it, unless you could Rainbow Six using the Heckler & Koch catalog or other real-world guns appearing in games. I researched the H&K USP and ultimately bought one based in part on Metal Gear Solid's portrayal of the SOCOM pistol, an analog of the USP.

I think that recognizable brand-name products in a near-future setting is pretty neat. I remember the huge Lexus plug in Minority Report. It helps me see it as the future and not some parallel universe, which contributes to my immersion. Futurama's blend of real celebrities and fictional corporations is pretty cool, too. You could use similar names and titles, but "Pipsie" and "Bizney World" won't pay you for the exposure.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Has this been done before? I don't think anyone's really done it, unless you could Rainbow Six using the Heckler & Koch catalog or other real-world guns appearing in games. I researched the H&K USP and ultimately bought one based in part on Metal Gear Solid's portrayal of the SOCOM pistol, an analog of the USP.

Now this is interesting in that it potentially paid off. My first example was a bit silly, but it would be interesting if you could portray some of the characteristics of the product as a means of being both true to your game and your funder: For instance, if you get Volvo, they're the safest car in the game, or whatever (so long as it could be verified).

I still wouldn't mind inspiring a friendly rivalry between Coke and Pepsi fans, though. ("Drink Coke, it'll make your HP come back faster" "Dude, you're smoking, the nanites in Pepsi increase your range." /silly)

Quote:

I think that recognizable brand-name products in a near-future setting is pretty neat. I remember the huge Lexus plug in Minority Report. It helps me see it as the future and not some parallel universe, which contributes to my immersion.

Exactly my thoughts, especially for near future sci-fi. Take I-Robot. The concept car was VERY cool and actually contributed to the movie; unfortunately, the Adidas did not (that much for me, anyway).

Sorry for not reading the whole thread... but you hit a nerve there.

Few minutes into 'I robot' I have will smith talking about the goddam shoe.
just going on and on about it.

Then it hits me.

I paid to watch a commercial.

Yes, you can place products, tastefully and all. But take a hint from I-Robot on how to NOT do it. Don't bring the gameplay / story to a sandstill to gush on the product. That's the equivalent of a commercial break. And if it gets in the way of your gaming, its a really bad thing.

However... what if it doesn't?
What if while your levels where loading, a short commercial would play? maybe game-themed, but still all-out commercial thing. The loading screen breaks immersion anyway, and you have to wait for it anyway. You can put a small loading bar at the bottom, and play the commercial on another thread with higher priority. With current hardware the video would make a small dent on the load time.

And if you were to do this... it MUST reflect on either the game's price (cheap) or the production values (very high).

This post was sponsored by Genius.
Making better hardware. Or something. For your healthy life.

At the shallow level, the "I, Robot"-viewer "paid to watch a commercial"; however, the significance of a consumeristic cyborg toting traditional Converse shoes, which represent the American Punk subculture, in a future that despises the past is a few fathoms deeper intellectually. Remember: "I, Robot" is an intellectual movie as it concerns transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and bioethics; thus, a little critical thinking is required. Science has never held anyone's hand.

Converse shoes are both a trend and a dead brand. Possibly, Converse shoes could make a comeback, but in the meantime, they will remain a "cult product" and appeal only to a small and dying market. I seriously doubt that the inclusion of Converse All Stars in "I, Robot" had primarily commercial intent. There are far more creative reasons for the inclusion than there are business reasons.

In the "Stuart Little" animations, Stuart Little wears red Converse All Stars too. I don't see too many viewers of those films complaining about distasteful shove-it-down-your-throat product promotion. Perhaps the "I, Robot"-Converse complaints stem from some other source... like Will Smith's image and acting style?