EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

March 10, 2010 -

The release of Madden NFL 11 this summer will mark the beginning of a new shift in policy for publisher Electronic Arts—they will sell all the in-game advertisements themselves.

Previously the company had relied on third-party in-game ad specialists, such as Massive Inc. and IGA Worldwide reports MediaWeek. EA’s Senior Vice President of Global Media Sales Elizabeth Harz said the move would allow EA to offer more elaborate,” integrated packages to advertisers.”

Greg March, Digital Group Director of the advertising agency Wieden + Kennedy thinks the move will streamline the ad buying process, “I love the idea of being able to talk to only one guy.” He continued, “That’s a logistical, procedural improvement, which should help. EA should be able to sell deeply on every platform.

Massive, which is owned by Microsoft, has estimated that the global in-game ad category could grow to $1.0 billion by 2014. An article penned by Massive GM JJ Richards last year offered that gamers like in-game advertisement because “it adds to the realism.”

GP: I would be shocked if many gamers came out and said they were in favor of in-game ads. The notion that games should be cheaper because of the revenue generated from ads is a bit naive too. Maybe the best case scenario is that in-game ads help offset the growing costs of development and assist in keeping the price of games from climbing any higher than they are now?


Comments

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

in game adds? if we see them making games cheaper for us then sure go ahead if not and its just to fill someones pockets forget it.

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

I wouldn't ever say I like the ingame ads, but there are two circumstances under which I don't really mind that much when they show up.

The first is when their existence provides a tangible benefit to the player. The only real example I can think of there, though, is Anarchy Online -- their free-to-play accounts are ad-supported.

The second example is when their existence is entirely consistent with the setting. Sports games like the above-mentioned Madden 2011 are a good example. I'd still like to see the price go down as a result of having them included, mind you, but as long as the ingame ads are restricted to "consistent with the setting" I can live with the price staying the same.

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

I remember an artical a while back that said prices of games might go down to $40 because of good sells of DLC. I wonder if we're any closer now that publishers are putting in in-game ads into the mix.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

.... If they're selling in game ad space, shouldn't games be getting LESS expensive?

And when I wrote that, I got the voice of that Office Space guy in my head going "Yyyeahhhh, we won't be doing that, if you could just continue paying higher prices that would be grreaaat"

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

Basically what Bloodharp said. I don't care about the ads at all, they can even put them during the load screens (as long as it doesn't make the load time longer), just don't raise the prices any more!

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: EA Brings In-Game Ad Sales In-House

They already know that if they push game prices up past 60, they wont be able to sell any game anyways. 50 was a hard sale backwhen, and i remember making damn sure i wanted what i was buying. When it hit 60, i had to be even more sure with tons of prior research and a plan to acquire it when i wished to. I doubt i could buy any if it hit $70 though.

In war, truth is the first casualty.

In war, truth is the first casualty.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenWhat this comes across as is "we need to find a way to silence anyone who says something we don't like."07/28/2015 - 8:08pm
Andrew EisenAnd how was Gamasutra not accountable for the opinion piece it published and refused to pull or edit even after advertising had been pulled?07/28/2015 - 8:08pm
Andrew EisenThere are tons of options when it comes to an opinion piece you don't agree with. Stating otherwise is dishonest or shows an extraordinary lack of imagination.07/28/2015 - 8:07pm
Mattsworknamethem acounatble. We just didn't have many opttions at the time07/28/2015 - 8:05pm
MattsworknameEZK:I never said it was justified, I just said that some people felt they didn't have any other means to hold them accountable. Weather it's justifited or not is somethign to debate, but I was never a big fan of it cause I wanted some other way to hold07/28/2015 - 8:04pm
Mattsworknameprice07/28/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameAndrew: Your not wrong andrew, but gamasutra , and others like it , were called to task by the audiance that felt they had turned there backs on them. True or not, in media, you have to know how to reach an audiance, and chosing not to, well, you pay a07/28/2015 - 8:03pm
Andrew EisenAt the end of the day, even when Intel pulled its advertising (albeit, temporarily), Gamasutra showed its journalistic integrity by not removing or editing the opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 8:00pm
Andrew EisenNot liking Gamasutra is fine. The audience is primarily industry folk and it's not a game-focused site so it's probably not targeting you anyway.07/28/2015 - 7:57pm
E. Zachary KnightMAtt, So, an online petition asking Target to stop selling GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but a petition and boycott of Intel to force them to stop advertising on Gamasutra is justified?07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenTrue or not, what it came across as a bunch of people lashing out at a publication over an opinion piece.07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
MattsworknameTo be honest, I've never liked them, but mostly cause rather then being a game focused site, they felt to political for my taste07/28/2015 - 7:56pm
Andrew EisenAnd in the case of Gamasutra?07/28/2015 - 7:54pm
Mattsworknameour concerns about them were well founded.07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
MattsworknameDepends on who you ask, accountable fto it's audiance, accountablie for lies and half truths, accountible for disengenous statements, everyone had there own reasons for going after them. Although in the case of gawker, recent events seem to indicate that07/28/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenAccountable for... what, exactly?07/28/2015 - 7:48pm
MattsworknameI think the intent was to force some kind of accountabilty on them. Granted As I said ,i wasn't exactly big on the ideas of attacking advertisers but it's a common and well used tactic. Sadly, theres not many other ways of holding media sites acountable07/28/2015 - 7:47pm
MechaTama31With the goal of...? Getting those media outlets to fire or silence the "scum"? That's shitty.07/28/2015 - 7:44pm
Mattsworknamewarned about the scum there assoicating with. Looking at you GAWKER media07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
MattsworknameI think the only reason it was the first action was alot of people felt it was the only option that might have an actual impact. and to be honest, i don't see how they were exactly wrong. Plus, as recent events showed, soem times adverisers need to be07/28/2015 - 7:37pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician