Large consumer brands are leaping into virtual worlds at a startling pace, according to a report recently published by marketing industry source Brand-E.
For those who play in a variety of browser and software online worlds, this shouldn't be too surprising. But its long-term effects certainly are.
Pixels and Policy takes a look at how tough economic times are driving developers to seek revenue anywhere they can, and why this might cause long-term damage to gaming's integrity.
Branding: A Lifeline in Tough Times
It isn't surprising that developers are turning to outside companies for in-world branding. Dominant companies like Electronic Arts and Blizzard Entertainment have seen their share prices tumble in recent weeks as tight credit and flagging consumer spending rattle even the solid bastions of sports games and World of Warcraft.
Anyone who played Pirates of the Caribbean Online received a crash course in the future of branding. The game, a free-to-play MMORPG designed to promote the third movie in Disney's fantasy series, hit big among the spendthrift teen market and continues to serve as an interactive intermission while Disney hacks out a fourth installment.
Now Sony is opening Free Realms, its newest online game, to lustful marketing agencies worldwide.
As Gamasutra notes, Free Realms has racked up over five million users since its launch in April, most of them young gamers attracted to its social networking and free-to-play aspects.
Though I can't for the life of me discern what it is Free Realms actually does aside from slapping some generic trolls and rats into a chat-and-grind structure, brand agents are keen to market their products to children in the impressionable 13-17 age bracket, and Sony is happy to oblige.
A representative from Sony told Brand-E:
“We are always looking to partner with groups that really make sense,” says Ivy. “Since our primary demographic is tweens and teens, we are sensitive to finding partners that speak to the age group with some authenticity, but also maintain the wholesomeness of the brand equity.”
Moving Towards a Consumer Metaverse?
This is telling on one major front: It shows that corporations will aggressively seek to add brand content that appeals to the player base of the game but doesn't necessarily agree with the flow of the virtual world. One could find "Ye Old iPod" on a quest, perhaps, even if the item seems out of place in the scenery of the virtual world.
Will this advertising plan prove effective? Industry voices are confident - perhaps overly so - that virtual worlds will prove as open to intrusive advertising as television and radio. This overlooks the importance of a game's lore and user-created history. The active consumer nature of virtual worlds defies anything experienced in television, the passive consumer outlet par excellence.
In a world that already has a persistent "flavor" of experience, with its own lore and history, how will consumers react to suddenly seeing out-of-place advertising?
The developing trend outlined in books like Alycia de Mesa's "Brand Avatar" takes the unique nature of virutal worlds into account, but it's too soon to tell if the dominant trend of "virtual worlds as the new television" will retain dominance.
If it means the difference between the expansion of a virtual world developer and the scaling back or scrapping of new content (due to revenue problems), would players be willing to accept plot-breaking branding?
This all presumes developers would even ask gamers their opinion on including branding or licensing rights within a virtual environment. So far, they've shown no such willingness.
But if enough of a game is changed in a way that players deem detrimental to the experience, developers will find themselves lacking both Wall Street capital and player investment.
Comments