Google Ad Sense for Games

Google testing “AdSense for Games” in bid to shake up in-game advertising has word that Google is looking to invade the in-game advertising space:
Google is the sleeping giant when it comes to advertising in video games. While the company dominates search advertising, it has yet to make a big splash in video games. That could change soon, as the company has been quietly testing its “AdSense for Games” product for months.

Sources close to the matter said that the company has developed an in-game advertising technology that allows it to insert video ads into games. In demos of the technology, a game character can introduce a video ad, saying something like, “And now, a word from our sponsor,” before showing a short video at the end of a sequence in a game. Since testing has been going on for some time, Google could launch the technology fairly quickly, if it so chooses.

But it’s not clear why Google hasn’t already launched its in-game advertising business, given that the seeds of AdSense for Games were planted in early 2007. Google did not respond to a request for comment this morning. I’ll update if that changes.

“I don’t know what’s taking them so long,” said one source close to the matter. “They could move into this market very quickly, given what they have shown off.”

If the company enters the market, it should stir up the competition the way it has in other ad markets. Companies such as Double Fusion, IGA Worldwide, Microsoft’s Massive, MochiMedia and NeoEdge Networks have been carving out niches with in-game or wrap-around ads for some time.
View : : :
36 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
36.
 
Re: Ad Sense for Games
Jul 11, 2009, 04:57
36.
Re: Ad Sense for Games Jul 11, 2009, 04:57
Jul 11, 2009, 04:57
 
I really like it.

-------

brianna

Buy WoW Gold
35.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 11, 2009, 04:46
35.
Re: No subject Jul 11, 2009, 04:46
Jul 11, 2009, 04:46
 
this article is really a fantastic one.
Buy WoW Gold
34.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 31, 2008, 13:25
34.
Re: No subject Jul 31, 2008, 13:25
Jul 31, 2008, 13:25
 
I love it when people come here and defend Crysis, naive and stupid. What a wonderfully entertaining combination.

You know, seeing as I was the only one to mention Crysis in this thread, you could have just called me out by name rather than pussyfooting around the point like a little bitch.

Although, I'm not entirely why you're talking about defending the game, unless you're just venting completely off-topic in a random thread. I merely drew a comparison between the budget of a game from 2008, the budget of a game from 1996, and the retail price of both.

33.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 31, 2008, 06:19
33.
Re: No subject Jul 31, 2008, 06:19
Jul 31, 2008, 06:19
 
I love it when people come here and defend Crysis, naive and stupid. What a wonderfully entertaining combination.

Google says "All your bases are belong to us"
They are giving it us royally and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The era of corporate domination is upon us. No more Stalins, or Hitlers, or even G.W. Bushes, but hey arent Google, Microsoft, "Insert-any-multibillion-dollar-corporation here" so much cooler?

I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
32.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 21:00
MattyC
 
32.
Re: No subject Jul 30, 2008, 21:00
Jul 30, 2008, 21:00
 MattyC
 
Crysis' development costs were in the double digit millions

They could always reduce costs by cutting back on the story and writing par... Oh, wait

Zagreb ebnom zlotdik diev!
Avatar 39012
31.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 20:28
31.
Re: No subject Jul 30, 2008, 20:28
Jul 30, 2008, 20:28
 
Agreed, but you know damn well developers won't do that. They will put ads in their games as well as charge $50 for it. Then they'll lie to the gaming community by blaming it on the increased cost of making games.

You're fooling yourself if you think Quake 1 and Crysis both had the same development costs. They were both $50, were they not? And if I'm not mistaken, Crysis' development costs were in the double digit millions? I can't find anything confirmation though.
This comment was edited on Jul 30, 20:30.
30.
 
...
Jul 30, 2008, 19:55
30.
... Jul 30, 2008, 19:55
Jul 30, 2008, 19:55
 
The reason it has taken them so long is they must realize its not going to work
Yes, they're working on a product that they know is never going to work. Great thinking there, cuntflap.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
29.
 
Re: question
Jul 30, 2008, 19:50
29.
Re: question Jul 30, 2008, 19:50
Jul 30, 2008, 19:50
 


what's everyone's thoughts on google-watch.org ?

Reasonable concerns slathered in extreme paranoia.
[i
= funny reading.

28.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 19:47
28.
Re: No subject Jul 30, 2008, 19:47
Jul 30, 2008, 19:47
 
Seriously - if I am playing a $40+ title and someone says, "and now a word from our sponsers" and it isn't game related (ala Saints Row and GTA, etc joke stuff) I am shutting the game off and never buying a game from that developer and publisher again.

That's it right there, vote with your wallet. If you don't want ads in the games you pay for, don't buy the ones that have them. Support the developers that refuse to put ads in their products (which will likely become fewer over time as this concept picks up steam). Independent sources may likely become one of the primary sources for no-ad games.

27.
 
The reason
Jul 30, 2008, 19:24
IQ
27.
The reason Jul 30, 2008, 19:24
Jul 30, 2008, 19:24
IQ
 
The reason it has taken them so long is they must realize its not going to work - people play games to get away from all that advertising shit.

26.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 19:12
26.
Re: No subject Jul 30, 2008, 19:12
Jul 30, 2008, 19:12
 
Only acceptable if they give away the games for free.

Agreed, but you know damn well developers won't do that. They will put ads in their games as well as charge $50 for it. Then they'll lie to the gaming community by blaming it on the increased cost of making games.

25.
 
yay
Jul 30, 2008, 19:08
25.
yay Jul 30, 2008, 19:08
Jul 30, 2008, 19:08
 
Great all I need is gay midget porn ads in my games...not that I search for that .....uh ...never mind...

24.
 
Evil
Jul 30, 2008, 18:07
24.
Evil Jul 30, 2008, 18:07
Jul 30, 2008, 18:07
 
Maybe Google's new policy is "do not evil, unless there's shitloads of cash in it for us".

23.
 
No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 17:58
23.
No subject Jul 30, 2008, 17:58
Jul 30, 2008, 17:58
 
Only acceptable if they give away the games for free.


22.
 
Re: Adblock plus & flashblock
Jul 30, 2008, 17:57
22.
Re: Adblock plus & flashblock Jul 30, 2008, 17:57
Jul 30, 2008, 17:57
 
$60 xbox games cannot have this because people will not tolerate it.

That's a bit ironic. Don't Gold Members pay $60 bucks a year for "online gaming" yet there are all those ads across the dashboard?

21.
 
Re: Adblock plus & flashblock
Jul 30, 2008, 17:07
21.
Re: Adblock plus & flashblock Jul 30, 2008, 17:07
Jul 30, 2008, 17:07
 
I think Adblock Plus has that built in because I run just Adblock plus and I get no flash animations, no sliding banners, no nothing.

I think running anything with Adblock Plus is redundant. I believe adblock plus blocks everything. And I friggin love it!

You think wrong.

Adblock stops advertisements from being displayed, and yes it generally stops flash animation ads as well. What it doesn't stop are scripts that run in the background which are a large source of tracking cookies and other menial things that build up, as well as far more offensive adware/spyware/viral threats.

That's what noscript is meant to stop. You'd be shocked if you ran it to see how many sites have scripts running from known adware/spyware companies. I wouldn't consider surfing the web without it anymore.

Adblock Plus is a wonderful addon, but to suggest that Noscript is redundant when used in conjunction is just plain naive misinformation.

20.
 
Re: question
Jul 30, 2008, 16:50
20.
Re: question Jul 30, 2008, 16:50
Jul 30, 2008, 16:50
 
what's everyone's thoughts on google-watch.org ?

Reasonable concerns slathered in extreme paranoia.

19.
 
question
Jul 30, 2008, 16:46
19.
question Jul 30, 2008, 16:46
Jul 30, 2008, 16:46
 
what's everyone's thoughts on google-watch.org ?

18.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 30, 2008, 16:35
18.
Re: No subject Jul 30, 2008, 16:35
Jul 30, 2008, 16:35
 
$60 xbox games cannot have this because people will not tolerate it.
With all the retards out there that have 360s (judging by the online experience), I don't think there will be all that much of an uproar over it.

I wouldn't care if they did it in a way that wasn't as ham-fisted as most of the product placement crap on TV these days. Being so blatant about it messes up the shows, but if they aren't blatant, then I guess the advertisers don't feel like they're getting the attention they want. Instead of making good shows and having commercials and maybe some discreet product placement, they just spam us with 200 reality shows that cost next to nothing to make and have ridiculous amounts of product placement on top of commercials.

Product placement only works in certain settings anyway. I'd be pretty pissed if they started trying to work Nike or Mt. Dew into Battlestar.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
17.
 
Re: It's everywhere!
Jul 30, 2008, 16:33
17.
Re: It's everywhere! Jul 30, 2008, 16:33
Jul 30, 2008, 16:33
 
Isn't anyone else sick of being inundated with advertising? I mean crap, it's in t.v., movies, polluting the highways, print media, websites... and now we get to get pummeled by Lavitra in our games. Thanks Google, you whore!

I like advertising that is targeted to me. If I'm in the market for a video card, I want to be advertised deals on video cards. However, there's nothing more of a turnoff than being offered Lavitra pills, no pun intended.

My issue with advertising, and by extension data mining isn't the concepts themselves. It's being fairly compensated for them, and being able to make the conscious tradeoff of fair compensation on my own will. As with many things in life, taking the automatic extreme of ads = fail is not something I could ever support.

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 16:35.
36 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older