• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Business Insider] Sony is building an ad program that will let brands advertise in PlayStation games

Programmatic ads could be all three, product placements, more typical billboards or pre/mid-roll interstitials.

The difference between the first two is very little really, it's just the form of the asset aka a 2d design vs a 3d one.

I suspect most if not all implementation will be the first two, product placements and billboards.

eSport Boxing Club is probably a good example to look at.

Also I think that both Microsoft and Sony are probably prepping for more 'metaverse' like experiences.

A very optimistic way to look at it; problem is the same rumor is already talking about Youtube-style loading screen ads or "break ads" in the games as well; there's no logical reason IMO to assume the product placement & billboard style will be dominant considering they require more work from all parties than the third, and if there's one thing about this industry (or most industries), it's that they want to take the path of least resistance to get the most gain.

Broader options for gamers who want online play but don't want to pay a fee. Just like how the XSS provides gamers on a budget with additional options to enter this generation. Options are good.

Nothing about these rumors point to Microsoft or Sony using these ads to get rid of paying for online. Especially since, if this is mainly for F2P games as everyone keeps saying, what sense would it make when F2P games are ALREADY actually F2P on consoles (you don't need PS+ or XBL Gold to play them online)?

Billboard ads and an extra splash screen I can live with.

Unskippable 30-60s ads akin to watching YouTube when not logged in and on a pc without Adblock are a step too far

Too bad that step going too far is probably what's going to happen, going by past examples with other things (DLC, MTX, lootboxes).

Sony and Microsoft make game consoles. On those consoles sub services cost money. Ads could potentially make those services free. If so I'd support ads in games for players who do not or can not pay for those services. It's not super complicated. I believe Netflix is planning on adding ads and lowering costs for customers who are interested.

Like GHG 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).

More likely, the ads will be an additional revenue stream for the platform holders in addition to everything else they already have, because that's what they companies want to do: maximize revenue & profit. Bringing up Netflix is actually not the best example, either, considering their stock cratering (which might bring into question the sustainability of streaming and subscription services in general) and them wanting to do an ad-based tier is part of the reason for their big subscriber loss (and will probably cause more subscribers to drop).

Personally I think it's very difficult to introduce ad-based options after the fact: you either have them there at the start or you just have to give up that type of model because the likely backlash against adding ad-based models to an existing subscription model or platform revenue model does more harm than good.

This isn't a 'me too' or a 'leak'...its been known for years...

Who was talking about this in 2016?
 
  • Strength
Reactions: GHG

GHG

Member
My point remains that this STILL has nothing to do with Game pass(even less so on PlayStation) and disingenuous comments trying to conflate the two are thinly veiled attempts to cast aspersions at MS. When it was believed to be a MS ONLY initiative it was treated differently than when it was determined to be something Sony was planning too.

I don't care if people like ads or not. No one really loves ads and I presented a suggestion that shows a way ads can be used to benefit gamers. My position is consistent whether it is Sony or Microsoft doing ads. My stance never changed. Show one post I made saying it was good/bad when MS has ads and the opposite when Sony does. I promise you can't.

Why is it impossible to have a logical discussion with you? You were literally talking about this is relation to gamepass and PS now in your previous responses to me in this thread. Now you want to deny it? You volunteered the fact that that's what you were thinking about when attempting to justify your positive stance on these ad programs:

Sony and Microsoft make game consoles. On those consoles sub services cost money. Ads could potentially make those services free. If so I'd support ads in games for players who do not or can not pay for those services. It's not super complicated. I believe Netflix is planning on adding ads and lowering costs for customers who are interested.

Your point is that it has nothing to do with gamepass, yet it is you correlating the two in order to justify your daily dose of corporate glugging.

Go see someone about that Alzheimer's.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Gold Member
That's bullshit then, just like Microsoft. Why do they want to ruin/change gaming so I see ads everywhere.

phillip j fry shut up GIF

Welcome to your cyberpunk dystopian future. Sponsored by RAID SHADOW LEGENDS.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Nothing about these rumors point to Microsoft or Sony using these ads to get rid of paying for online. Especially since, if this is mainly for F2P games as everyone keeps saying, what sense would it make when F2P games are ALREADY actually F2P on consoles (you don't need PS+ or XBL Gold to play them online)?
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.
Like GHG 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).

More likely, the ads will be an additional revenue stream for the platform holders in addition to everything else they already have, because that's what they companies want to do: maximize revenue & profit. Bringing up Netflix is actually not the best example, either, considering their stock cratering (which might bring into question the sustainability of streaming and subscription services in general) and them wanting to do an ad-based tier is part of the reason for their big subscriber loss (and will probably cause more subscribers to drop).

Personally I think it's very difficult to introduce ad-based options after the fact: you either have them there at the start or you just have to give up that type of model because the likely backlash against adding ad-based models to an existing subscription model or platform revenue model does more harm than good.
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.

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.

Why is it impossible to have a logical discussion with you? You were literally talking about this is relation to gamepass and PS now in your previous responses to me in this thread. Now you want to deny it? You volunteered the fact that that's what you were thinking about when attempting to justify your positive stance on these ad programs:



Your point is that it has nothing to do with gamepass, yet it is you correlating the two in order to justify your daily dose of corporate glugging.

Go see someone about that Alzheimer's.
Your emotional rant has nothing to do with the fact that A) I remained consistent that these ads are for F2P games and B)if these ads were planned for non F2P software, like software on Game pass, the ads could be used to subsidize the cost.

You 'glug' corporate PR regularly you just dislike one corporation over another so you complain and try to play gotcha even when you have no relevant point. You seem pretty cranky so perhaps it's nap time for you.
 

Kdad

Member
A very optimistic way to look at it; problem is the same rumor is already talking about Youtube-style loading screen ads or "break ads" in the games as well; there's no logical reason IMO to assume the product placement & billboard style will be dominant considering they require more work from all parties than the third, and if there's one thing about this industry (or most industries), it's that they want to take the path of least resistance to get the most gain.



Nothing about these rumors point to Microsoft or Sony using these ads to get rid of paying for online. Especially since, if this is mainly for F2P games as everyone keeps saying, what sense would it make when F2P games are ALREADY actually F2P on consoles (you don't need PS+ or XBL Gold to play them online)?



Too bad that step going too far is probably what's going to happen, going by past examples with other things (DLC, MTX, lootboxes).



Like GHG 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).

More likely, the ads will be an additional revenue stream for the platform holders in addition to everything else they already have, because that's what they companies want to do: maximize revenue & profit. Bringing up Netflix is actually not the best example, either, considering their stock cratering (which might bring into question the sustainability of streaming and subscription services in general) and them wanting to do an ad-based tier is part of the reason for their big subscriber loss (and will probably cause more subscribers to drop).

Personally I think it's very difficult to introduce ad-based options after the fact: you either have them there at the start or you just have to give up that type of model because the likely backlash against adding ad-based models to an existing subscription model or platform revenue model does more harm than good.



Who was talking about this in 2016?
The patent has been around since 2009 and published 2012. Its come and gone from discussion on the net since then since then.
 
Last edited:
i want ads inside PlayStation games with Will Smith and Poutine for " eatmypussyiamaman.ass" please someone do it! It would be the higlitght of any ad content in video game ever! 🤡😂🤡
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Too bad that step going too far is probably what's going to happen, going by past examples with other things (DLC, MTX, lootboxes).
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.

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.
 

GHG

Member
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.

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.

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.


Your emotional rant has nothing to do with the fact that A) I remained consistent that these ads are for F2P games and B)if these ads were planned for non F2P software, like software on Game pass, the ads could be used to subsidize the cost.

You 'glug' corporate PR regularly you just dislike one corporation over another so you complain and try to play gotcha even when you have no relevant point. You seem pretty cranky so perhaps it's nap time for you.

Pointing out the fact that you're yet again being a hypocrite who can't help but contradict yourself is not "gotcha".

In summary:
  • The ad program has nothing to do with gamepass
  • But then when explaining your positive stance on said program it could have something to do with gamepass
  • But it still has nothing to do with gamepass
I don't dislike one company over another, I dislike hypocritical disingenuous clowns (not naming names here). Don't know who you're trying to kid with this "for the gamers" and "oPtIoNs fOr gAmErS" stance, nobody is buying it. It's become abundantly clear you're not interested in people getting the highest quality experience possible (possibly because you don't actually play games yourself, you only seem to be interested in the business side of things and defending a particular company), you're only concerned with what makes companies the most money possible, even if it's to the detriment of people's experiences.

As everyone has seen before you're happy to lie, you're happy to be a blatant hypocrite and discussions with you (regardless of whom it's with) always end with you stumbling and tripping over yourself.

 
Last edited:

TDiddyLive

Member
They did it for both Need for Speed Carbon and Burnout Paradise.


Thats Need for Speed Carbon.....you can see the Carbon number plate on the car?
I remember it from Burnout Paradise back when it happened. I never played Need For Speed Carbon. As for the picture I used, it’s from an article about Burnout paradise having ads.
 

WitchHunter

Member
similar to a move by Microsoft to run ads in Xbox.
Time to ban Microsoft from gaming space. They have a very bad influence on gaming. They fucked up web developers with IE for almost a decade, and now this. Ask Elon to send the MS HQ to Mars ASAP. Start a fundraiser to make this happen.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
I remember it from Burnout Paradise back when it happened. I never played Need For Speed Carbon. As for the picture I used, it’s from an article about Burnout paradise having ads.
But you played Burnout Paradise....didnt you notice the screenshot was NOT of Burnout Paradise?
 
I think this should have been done long time ago already. I mean, what better place to market your gamer targeted products than in a f videogame!?

The problem would be if these ads get to be intrusive or if the games get designed around these, like they are in the mobile gaming market. Otherwise I think it's ok. Playing a car game and having real life offers in billboards instead of an outdated ad artwork it's better imho.

EDIT: also, get rekt streamers with exclusivity sponsor ad deals
This is why they want always online and why we should still be pushing back. They will force this in single player so they can do ad updates. It will start in free to play and creep over to legit pay for games, watch.
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:

Notabueno

Banned
Tell that Samsung or LG. I got ads in my tvs menus.

System is different, it's a not-so-grey-area: if you sued them, you'd absolutely win the case unless you live in dumbistan. BUT if the TV can work without the OS layer and the OS layer is not advertised as being part of the product or complementary, therefor meaning that it's not part of what you purchased, it could be legal. But, technically, it's not, absolutely not.
 
Top Bottom