It was speculation on a way ads could be used in a constructive way that would benefit gamers and provide an additional way to allow online play for games that are NOT F2P. I never claimed this is what either company was actually doing. I'm aware this program is for F2P software which your friend didn't know.
There's a big problem in this idea though: since Sony & Microsoft run centralized servers for their online services, any game that isn't F2P using ads to negate online paywall would have to be done on Microsoft and Sony's approval, unless those games are of publishers who decide to run their own servers (and basically decentralize from Microsoft & Sony's ones). Which I'm not even sure they would be able to do on the console side of things.
So basically, any of the revenue those publishers would generate through having ads in their games to offset players needing to pay for online, would be cut into because now MS & Sony will want a cut of that ad revenue due to no longer getting anything from users subscribing to XBL Gold/GPU/PS+ for online play of those non-F2P games. In fact, this could technically get them more revenue over time depending on the ads 3P publishers net for their games, but it also means a recurring cut that 3P publishers have to pay to platform holders.
If that cut eats enough into what revenue the 3P publishers can get from those ads themselves (because Sony & Microsoft would want to make sure they can make as much through this as they currently do from PS+/XBL Gold/GamePass subscriptions, and as an example Sony generated $3.2 billion in PS+ subs the past fiscal year), then one way or another that is going to influence how 3P publishers even use these ads. They'll either be very rampant and high in number, or low in count due to costs. But if the latter happens, publishers will just up the costs or amounts of MTX, lootboxes etc. to make up for it, making those parts of their revenue pipeline more annoying.
...
potentially. These are all just speculations but, since I can't really picture most games using these in-game ads in ways that actually add more to the gamer experience and boost the quality of game design, I'm not interested in only thinking of what ways this can potentially benefit gamers especially when most of that is "only" in terms of costs (which if you're not particularly that cost-conscious as a gamer, isn't even what might be most "valuable" to you versus your actual gaming experience/quality of that gaming experience, regardless of price saved).
I didn't see him make any salient point. He mearly tried to paint me as some sort of hypocrite with an inconsistent position between the Sony and Xbox threads on the same topic.
Well, that's between you and him. I'm not accusing you of anything.
With your logic there is also little chance these ads find their way into retail software or sub services like Game pass either. How could any of these platforms justify the addition of ads when the software from a store shelf is exactly like the software on Game pass or PS+? That is why I brought up a scenario where ads in paid software would actually make sense because to claim that Sony and MS are lying and in actuality normal retail software is going to now feature ads is firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory.
Again, I'm saying the
point of access of that content is what would be the determining factor as to if ads are in those games or not. It might be a troubled connotation, but with something like GamePass or PS Now, you are technically renting out a library of games to play. It's like digital GameFly; you pay a monthly fee to be able to rent out some games to play. Yes you can download them in full to play them locally, for as long as you want (as long as you stay subbed to that service), but conceptually that is basically the same as a rental. Most movie VODs are similar, going even back to stuff like Pay-Per-View (where the "service" there can be thought of as your cable provider, the PPV the sub-service on top of that and the film itself the content you're renting out for a period of time to watch).
That is a very different means of accessing the content than actually buying a single-use license copy for ownership, which is what you would do if that same game were on a digital storefront to be purchased, or in a brick-and-mortar retail store for purchase. The content stays the same, but the way in which you're
acquired that content is very much different. And the acquisition method is where they'd determine if the non-F2P game has ads ("rented" from GamePass, PS Now-esque PS+ tier etc.) or not (digital purchased from Xbox storefront of PS storefront; physical purchase from store).
The patent has been around since 2009 and published 2012. Its come and gone from discussion on the net since then since then.
Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Welp, if it's exactly like that patent, it's gonna be a hard fail.
I am curious as to why you think that MTXs and loot boxes are examples that can be used to determine how in game ads are going to be.
Because lootboxes and MTXs were supposed to not originally be as aggressively in-your-face as they've ended up becoming for many console games? On the mobile side you already had horrible lootbox & MTX schemes in certain games, the worry was that would manifest in console gaming too.
Well by and large that hasn't 100% happened yet but it's been a very gradual climb towards that. Halo Infinite MTX costs have been very questionable; GT7's were so ridiculous Soy & PD were forced to make swift changes a couple weeks later.
If there was no pushback at all, the worst-case implementations of lootboxes and MTX would already be present in vast majority of console AAA games with them. Same will be the case with ads if there isn't reasonable pushback; the big reason there is already pushback is because you'd think F2P devs generate enough money as-is from MTX sales. So why do they need yet another revenue stream especially if it's one that isn't even being done by them, but Sony & Microsoft directly? And why would Microsoft or Sony want to do this "out of kindness" for 3P teams working on F2P games unless they also had intentions to take a cut from generated revenue, regardless what these rumors are saying?
What do you think they will do? An ad before/after every match? On start up? PC/console gaming will become like watching YouTube?
Seeing the reach that gaming has now, I am surprised that ads have not already become more prevalent.
Dude the rumors for both even mention things like ads in matchmaking lobbies, which is basically the same as an ad before a match. And if they are considering that, why would they not be considering Youtube or Twitch-style ad breaks outright in games? Just look at the link
Kdad
posted ITT.
It's not a reach to worry about these things when the actual leaks and patents show this exact same stuff. Like you I'm surprised to an extent that
console games haven't had ads in them (though, again, some do; Gears 5 on Xbox has an ad at the start for Gears Tactics); on mobile that's been a thing for years, console not so much. But that has been a good thing IMO because ads are not a passive medium like films or TV shows. And even in those cases, a lot of people would much rather prefer to watch them without ad breaks, due to the benefits for immersion that brings.
The only way this can even hope to work in a way the majority tolerate is by using in-game billboard assets and other game assets that can integrate corporate items as product placement, and hopefully in ways that fit the mood and atmosphere of the game. But like I've seen other people bring up, even this could cause some issue because publishers wanting to maximize revenue on ads would use that to potentially dictate what type of games they make, in order to cut down on thematic integration clashes as much as possible.
So you could end up with a future where you get less Halos and more modern CODs because the latter is easier to justify having a lot of current-day product placement in. You might get less Horizons and more Watch Dogs because, again, the latter just naturally has way less of a root aspect that'd create clashes for product placement, meaning higher margins on revenue from ads. Stuff like that.
GHG
said, there's very little chance that these ad programs will get rid of paid online. At least, not unless they become an absolutely massive revenue stream to where Microsoft & Sony can afford to sacrifice paid online and still get a net revenue increase (which would also contradict part of the rumor saying that at least Microsoft are not considering taking a cut from these ads..which I find extremely hard to believe).
