     |
 |
 |
 | | | | |
 |
|||
 |
||||||
          |
 |
 |
||||
|
First-Person Advertiser - Talking In-Game Ads With Threewave Software
DI: That’s right. It’s about finding a way to integrate the ads into the content that’s unobtrusive to the user. That’s the key word, as you don’t want to piss off the community; you don’t want a backlash, as then you’re not going to be able to generate the numbers that you’ve promised the sponsor. So we’re very conscious of that. I’m not saying it’s not an issue, nor am I saying that every sponsor is a perfect fit for FPS titles either. I can think of any number of household products that you couldn’t integrate. The interesting thing about our diversified business model, though, is that we’re not dependent solely upon the publisher. We can develop content for any FPS and provide that to the community, perhaps even independent of the publisher. So content comes out for the FPS, they’re aware of it, but they’ve not had to support it. So the publisher’s FPS brand and the sponsor’s brand are both developed. That’s a compelling idea. As far as our business goes, it’s an opportunity for us to look at which projects we’re going to undertake in a much clearer light, rather than saying “oh this project is being offered to us, we’d better take it, because I don’t know if we’ll get another.” When you have revenues coming from multiple sources, not just from the publisher, that gives you more choices, more opportunities to find projects that fit your beliefs. GS: But which comes first? The content or the sponsor? DI: We’ve done it both ways, one project one way, one project the other. I’d say either way can work, but either way also has its challenges. You do get a number of disconnects between media buyers with what they think is possible and what actually is, but we’ve had other sponsors who were totally cool, they just want to see their logo and are very receptive to whatever we come up with. I guess it’s really the difference between an educated buyer and an uneducated one.
GS: So you consider yourself primarily content creators. DI: We’ve developed the odd plug-in, and certainly we have an emphasis on programming as we always have to develop and integrate our SDKs with the core engine. But I think one of the main advantages of the way we do things is that we don’t have to invest millions and millions of dollars in technology that’s only going to be used in one game. We’re using the tools that are provided by some of the top developers in the world, and it’s how they make great games. Making great games is challenging enough as it is, so we try and concentrate on creating content in a reasonable amount of time – between 9-15 months, rather than 20-30, where the team could easily get burnt out. We like to offer our staff the ability to switch projects and roles, too, rather than just “you’re an animator, animate Spongebob Squarepants for the next three years.” GS: All your content has a quick turn around? GS: How do you expect to distribute these titles? DI: There are opportunities to distribute online via Steam, or through other online services and communities. There’s also the possibility that sponsors might want to distribute the titles at retail. So I wouldn’t say any specific distribution model is preferred – it just depends on what the brand is, and what is likely to be most useful for it. GS: Are these products likely to be stand-alone? DI: Generally speaking, yes. Even based on existing technologies we’ll have our own game executables, though there might be specific situations when the brand could be integrated into the main product, in which case you’d need to own the original game. It’s a case by case thing; online distribution could very well be “map only,” while content bundled at retail would be stand-alone. Nothing has been proven yet, but that’s the kind of direction we’re heading in. |
|||||||||||||||
Features
Previous
|
|
|