Slashdot just posted a story about a representative of Massive named JJ Richards vying for in-game advertisements as adding to a gamer’s experience. His argument is sound enough: if a game takes a player somewhere he should expect to see adverts (like Times Square) then it adds to the immersion to have those ads be current, realistic, and updated in real time. It would indeed be interesting to play a game you’d put down two years ago, only to find that all of the background noise like billboards, newspapers, televisions, and the like were updated to current times, but this is not without a very resounding caveat.

While in-game adverts as described above could prove valuable for game-play, they’re also making money. And anytime there’s a chance for media to make more money, there’s little stopping bad ideas from ruining good ones. In this case, my main fear is seeing in-game adverts where there shouldn’t be any at all – dated or current. After all, look at 3-D movies. Some treat 3-D technology as a twist and a draw to get you to see the film in theaters, but most of these films revolve around the technology, not a strong story, good acting, or solid directing. Films such as My Bloody Valentine are horrid movies without 3-D because that became the point of the movie, not an added feature to heighten immersion. Sound familiar? It’s the same thing that could happen with in-game adverts.

Too, this is the sort of thing that will add too little value to garner loyalty to the store-bought version of the game. Those who would pirate the game will be more than happy to bypass updated billboards or modern songs playing on the in-game radios. In fact, pirates might very well make it a point to avoid games which “phone home” – even if it’s only to upload more adverts. For many, it could smack of a privacy issue. It would – at the very least – communicate to someone how and how often you play your games. That alone is enough to make some gamers wary.