Post by leunas on Oct 4, 2006 14:19:13 GMT -5
ArsTechnica claims that last year's suspicious research conclusion, that gamers actually enjoy games with advertising more than those without, is probably just as bunk as it sounds.
Not only was the study funded by those that stood to profit from such a result, but it just doesn't sound right. A new study by ComScore Networks asserts that 63 percent of "hardcore gamers" (16+ hours per week), and 73 percent of more casual gamers polled, did not want in-game ads.
AT suggests an alternative:
The reality is that advertising generates $1-2 of profit per title sold. This is not the sort of massive subsidy that game designers would have you believe is necessary to keep the games coming. If advertising provided 25 or 30 percent of the title's development budget, the argument would make more sense. When a new game sells for $60, though, adding another buck to the price is hardly going to break anyone's bank.
The problem with this solution is that it does not take into account the cost of extra programming time required to create two version of the same game, even though the differences would probably be limited to texture swapping. I'm not sure how much work that would be, however.
www.kotaku.com/gaming/advertising/opting-out-of-ingame-advertising-204933.php