In-game advertising is nothing new, but it appears that Sony plans to ramp up advertising in their PS3 games. CNET's Don Reisinger thinks this "ruins the experience of playing games".
Let's talk about benefits. Pushing in-game advertising will most likely lead to lower game prices. I recently had the pleasure of playing through a new ad-supported downloadable version of Farcry for free. Farcry's a few years old, but putting up with a few interstitial ads during download screens was well worth it.
Advertisers want to be as unobtrusive as possible with their advertising. What do I care if Solid Snake knocks over a can of Coke rather than a can of nondescript 'Cola'? He already smokes Luckies. Doesn't this hypothetical instance of advertising make for an even more immersive experience? Same goes for in-game billboard advertising in sports games.
Reisinger closings by arguing that "not even gamers can stop the onslaught"; the onslaught being the inevitable march of ad-supported gaming. Gamers like Don who don't like ads will still be able to play ad-free games at a premium, just like how many websites offer banner ad-free content with membership. Similarly, CNET's banner ads don't keep me from enjoying the site's outstanding editorial content. Ahem. And if gamers reject in-game advertising en masse, as Don seems to think they will, they will stick to buying games with no ads. So, yeah, gamers can prevent the onslaught, with the power of the purse. I just can't see this happening, though. All other media has moved towards exclusive advertising support, why not games?
This will generate more revenue for game companies, allowing them to reduce the price of their products and pump more money into new offerings, resulting in more and better games for you and for me. On the contrary, Don, this is good for everyone.
Am I the only one who welcomes this developent?