Microsoft patent eyes ads in streaming online games Microsoft appears to be expanding its push to place ads throughout different products to online games. In a patent filed earlier this year, Microsoft engineers envision an "unintrusive" method for placing personalized ads and other content that can be seen by gamers while they're playing a cloud-based or internet-connected …
They should bring out their ad-supported version of MS glasses and they can start replacing billboards in real life! Imagine the possibilities, those hours of driving enlivened by interactive ads. It'll be good for the economy and good for the user too. (Honest, judge, that cyclist jumped out from behind the Budweiser ad.) Also imagine Clippy offering you a helping hand in those mundane daily tasks. What could possibly go wrong?
the concept of actually buying something that you actually owned and could do what you liked with and nobody else could piss around with it? License this, ongoing lease that, rental plan the other...
It's getting to year end: time to send some more money to the various penguins I use. Because I truly fear a world where the likes of this is considered good business.
No no, he's got a point. Look at what happened to streaming services and movies. They have adverts before/after/in them now, and so the content companies did the decent thing and no longer charge the end-consumer. Which is jolly nice of them. After all, to charge people a subscription or ticket cost, and then show adverts, would be double-dipping, and that would be greedy, and I'm not sure I'd want to live in the kind of world where that was a thing.
Also, there are unicorns at the bottom of my garden.
The problem is that he has a point from the perspective of normal human beings, not from the perspective of a US megacorp where leaving a cent on the table so the customer doesn't starve in between payments is considered a sacking offense.
Honestly, if they could dial back their greed by 1% they could have the world and its mother but it's exactly that scavenger, make-sure-you-pick-the-bones-clean attitude that generates the revulsion that is ever growing. I cannot blame the kids for rebelling against that - it's hard to teach them about decency when the world they're in is full of ravens seeking to either pick them clean, or use them via pester power to suck the parents dry.
Martin Shkreli was just a bit too blatant about it, but they're all at it.
Its a feature of late stage capitalism, known as 'rentier capitalism'. You're not interested in making stuff as such but merely owning it so you can extract 'rent' from others' using it.
The ideal corporate enterprise is the IRS (or HMRC,I think its the equivalent in the UK). Its an organization that collects revenue but has no product (apart from the notion that really bad things may happen to you if you ignore it). Its overheads are just revenue collection and enforcement. It wasn't that long ago that selling taxing powers was a handy way for kings to raise a chunk of cash; its fallen out of fashion (somewhat) because it tends to give the neoliberal capitalist game away but the idea's perfect -- "Invest in the IRS, guaranteed RoI".
To be fair (spit), the IRS or HMRC are not stand-alone "corporate enterprise" but the revenue generation subsidiaries. The "product" is things like the judiciary system , defence, road building, education system etc., (might vary in some countries that don't have a national education system etc) so not really a great comparison since taxes do pay for stuff we use. Whether you agree with all or even none of the uses of taxes, you do use and benefit from stuff paid for from them. Even the 100% committed anarchist living totally off grid and off the land is still benefiting from the rule of law that says a bigger boy can't just come along and take away your toys :-)
Advertising Standards is an advertising industry group doing "self management" to reduce the likelihood of external regulation being imposed on the advertising industry. They aren't actually a government regulatory body; they just like to imply that they are.
Therefore, they aren't going to give a toss about what their members do unless it risks bringing real external regulation on their industry.
.. which this hopefully will bring - what MS is proposing is effectively camouflaged advertising, and that has been banned before - that's why ads now require a tag that indicates them being ads. A repeat could see either regulation or an absolute boatload of money spent on bribing, sorry, lobbying to prevent that as we're talking about something that is several factors more invasive and covert.
The fix in the US is, of course, to wait for elections and then offer it to political parties which will make the threat of legislation melt away faster than a chocolate bunny on top of a crypto mining rig.
Should they get lost in the same place where mobile games interrupt gameplay to show an ad, or because they're not actually interrupting gameplay and the ad becomes incidental to the action, should they get lost in a different locality?
No this is quite alright. It only pisses off the people who can afford their games anyway, so doesn't affect me in any way.
Since the ads are to be served through separate streams hopefully it means those clever people updating Pi-hole (or your alternative favourite ad blocker) will be able to block the ad content.
Although it may start to look a bit ugly in-game with big blank billboards/shirts/car bumpers etc where the ads were supposed to appear
- Can someone put an end to this "the internet is only there to push ads"?
That will only happen when a large enough number of people start paying in cold hard cash for their internet services. That means paying for all the currently free webmail, search, cloud storage, calendars, maps, photo storage and management, VPN services, and websites providing news, information / reference, entertainment etc plus I'm sure I've missed out a few. A quick estimate of Google's revenue vs user base shows that Google make around $100/year/user (and considerably less than that to provide the services they do, hence the massive profits). It's probably similar for FB, plus all the other smaller ones. How many people are willing to pay $200-250/year for a completely ad-free internet? And how many companies are willing to take the risk to go up against the incumbent giants with a paid model, knowing that if you make any headway those same giants will ruthlessly undercut you?
There's a large number of apps with an ad-free paying tier, many niche news and content websites that take a small subscrption fee etc, which tells me that such a model is possible for the small number of people willing to pay. As to the possibility that a critical mass of internet users will migrate to that model, I'm pretty sure that will happen on the same timeframe as airborne bacon.
And that's it. I'm quite happy to pay for services used on the internet - though I fear that Google and their ilk might have a difference of opinion over what constitutes a 'reasonable' fee - but there is no way on this green earth that I will pay a subscription which also carries adverts.
and yet, milions of people around the world pay for their service, and still get ads, and still keep paying for their service. Which tells me that this model will also work for areas where 'paid' still means 'unad-ded'. Just need to boil the public a little longer.
"they can charge a subscription **and** run ads as well"
That's why I left Sky many years ago (not long after the digital transition). The amount of advertising on a paid-for service got to the point where I said no and cancelled.
It's something app devs don't seem to understand. Most people will tolerate some advertising. We grew up with commercial TV so there's an amount of noise that can be mentally blocked. But when it crosses the threshold and what you remember about the advert is that it constantly displays the same stupid advert for Footlocker (with a five second timeout), or that it pops up fake close icons that throw you into Play Store (and thus likely counts as an advert tap), that's when it's time to say "stuff this crap" and simply walk away.
Unless Microsoft is planning to use the advertising to offer better games for less money [*], they can all go sit on a bayonet and rotate at the RPM of a decent harddisc.
* - I'm not a gamer but I've seen how much they cost.
We're talking about "personalization options that would provide a richer gaming experience".
What does that even mean, a richer gaming experience? The experience that you feel so rich that you can buy this object that is advertised?
If I am "below a threshold interaction count", my screen-saver kicks in. Is Microsoft saying they're going to play adds on the screensaver? Or, if I'm in a game waiting for a monster that will come around the corner, will I get adds for peace-loving objects that prevent me from shooting the monster at exactly the right time?
Or is it a matter of feeding you so many adds that you either give-up or buy a f-ing sibscription?
As a gamer, my idea of richer and more personalised is to be able to mod my game to be more like I want (typically less difficult and with better shoes). Most of the people who push the Richer and More Personalised Experience™ hate modding because it might prevent ads and eat into the margins on their low value, high price DLC.
I read this as being MS's idea of product placement - which we see today in movies.
So for example, a game may currently have a specific brand (real-world or game environment specific) of canned drink. With MS I could white label that can and sell the advertising space - so someone might see a can of Pepsi and someone else Coke, or a player might see different brands on different game sessions.
Which would imply this is more about IP land grab than real innovation.
We will drill holes in your eyes and pour in our adverts. YOU WILL BUY WHAT WE WANT TO SELL YOU! Anyone else getting sick to death of all adverts? What ever happened to the idea that we would get "targeted" adverts for stuff that we may actually want? Utter arse-gravy of the stinkiest runniest kind. All I get are adverts for stuff I have already bought or stuff I already decided not to buy. I now habitually mute the TV when the ads come on, I look away when my tablet pushes an advert at me, and avoid websites that have overly aggressive adverts on them, especially those crappy "local news" sites like Kent Live which only seem to exist to spew adverts at you and otherwise have the journalistic integrity of a winnet. No wonder people are going more and more offline when the online experience is just one long vomit stream of advertising.
At least the targeted ads show a bit of variety after Christmas, as they over-react to the sudden change in buying pattern - not only mine, but in the "commonly bought together" suggestions from other buyers.
Hmm, a 2l bottle of whisky, Barbie tutu and a tartan wheelie shopper - could be an interesting evening.
EVERYTHING is advertised on the internet. You might not be buying as a result of seeing it advertised on the internet, but pretty much everything you do buy is advertised there. And even you think you are not buying as a result of seeing it advertised, they are still building brand awareness which might lead you yo a later purchase that you only think you independently chose.
Advertising is a tangled web and we're all stuck in it, ad and script blockers not withstanding.
I can think of a dozen things that would enrich my gaming experience, but ads are nowhere in that list.
And since when are ads the answer to "immersive, personalized content" ?
Just take the marketing department out behind the chemical shed and shoot the lot of them.
How the ever loving hell does crap like this possibly merit a patent? The ability to rotoscope (which is all this really is) is freakin' old. Older than me, and that is saying something!
Also, just no. NO! I buy the game, I own the copy, I don't ever want to see any ad for anything. End of discussion. (Mandatory on-line can also bite me.)
I will just stick to indy or sendhand off-line games, with maybe some Sauerbraten for online japes.
You'd think so, but I'll always be reminded of that Steam group named "boycott XXX!" where the members tab was filled with people playing XXX. I forget the game but it doesn't matter, it was a classic example of:
Indignant gamer: "I'm not giving Big Game Company™ another cent!"
Big Game Company™: "But look at the shiny, look at it glisten. You want the precious. You need the precious."
Formerly indignant gamer: "Ooh, shiny... must have... the precious... take my money, take it all..."
This first problem is Discless, and, allways online Consoles. Tis said often enough of these Ponzi scamming Gold Cert, (later), Dog e-Coin Sites, but, I find the sentence rings just as true here: If I can't hold it... I don't own it!... Also true with other popular Sites that sell you licensees to watch films that you have to pay the same amount for, as were they on Disc. but aren't, and the Studios can "alter the deal" (Pray they don't alter it further), by cutting out entire scenes. (see Oo-lala in the original BttF Film... or not), and that's yet one more reason to return in force to psychical media. At least my OG XBOX, PS3, and 4's don't require my being on-line, much less having to subscribe to one of those crappy on-line services (XBL / PSN), in order to use it. But, I suspect that will eventually happen with the next gen consoles (post PSV / XBSX).
I grew up around Branson, Missouri in the States and could only wish that was true for billboards/hoardings. The 65 highway between Springfield and Branson, Missouri is a blighted, hellscape of outdoor advertisment. The adverts become background noise for the residents but they were always there...
For those not familiar and my UK brothers/sisters: Branson is the off-off Broadway for every has-been musician and actor to entertain Boomers of a certain persuasion. The roadways to Branson are absolutely paved with billboards for stupid show, conventions, and guns (very American).
Having worked for a short stint in the advertisement department of a large company, marketing is probably the least scientific of a profession outside of the arts. They would just throw money at shit and it was insanely difficult to track the actual impact. So no, there will always be a fool, and often the same one who will pay for spot that provides no benefit.
So for now you show ads for car insurance on billboards in Grand Theft Auto, or hair removal products in Call of Duty. But before you know it your game switches full screen advertisements after every 5 minutes of game play and you have to sit through all of them.
Funcom did this in their game Anarchy Online back in the 2006-2009 or so. I still remember the in game billboards showing those "Be All You Can Be" US Army adds (the same ones being shown on broadcast TV then).
I guess it is inevitable now, that the current generation of sheep have been trained to rent more and more of their entertainment (music, video and now games via cloud gaming), get used to paying for renting a game that shows you adds for crap you have zero interest in.
Just imagine what these corporations will do if the Metaverse ever happens.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
