Opinion
Not Actual Gameplay Footage
When publishers advertise their games they are not only representing their own brands, but those of platform manufacturers too, says Thom Dinsdale.
There are two parts to this decision, one objective and the other subjective. The ASA reacted to the fact that a product in an advert had claimed to be something it isn¹t - a 360 ad using PS3 footage. This was a clear-cut case leading to a straightforward decision. But the water muddies the moment that the ASA claimed that one version looks better than the other because, in doing so, it's assuming that it matters. As though agents of this self-regulatory organisation - noses pressed against HD screens, counting lines and forensically figuring which image of Vanille¹s hair is the more vivid orange - were representative of the playing public.
By saying that the advert has the potential to mislead, the ASA is saying that it has the power to make someone believe the game to be better than it actually is and so buy it under false pretences. And yet, only 20 per cent of UK households actually subscribe to HD broadcast services and so have any chance of seeing the ad in its full glory. You have to wonder whether many people had the chance of being mislead in the first instance.
Beyond this, the case is fascinating because it raises the question of whether graphics are a deal clincher - whether a jump in fidelity and another inch clawed towards photorealism is enough to make someone go out and spend their money when they might otherwise have not.
It is typical that with any technology, initial fascination is focused on what it does rather than what it means. Over time, functionality becomes the preserve of those with a specific level of technical literacy. The select few building PCs on which to play Crysis have very different needs (and so a different role for marketing) than an average DSi owner. For evidence of the diverging nature of these two approaches, you need only look as far as the launch of this hardware generation. Where both Microsoft and Sony locked horns on the sheer digital horsepower of their machinery, Nintendo pushed the social and human element. The result for Nintendo was market leadership.
With this shift, the role of advertising changes. Simply reeling off product specifications does little to motivate potential customers. Software line-up (the experiences on offer) and what close friends are doing are much more likely to bear upon the decision to spend your money. The fact that this debate is about FFXIII's cutscene footage makes it all the more pertinent. Final Fantasy games have set benchmarks for graphics through their cutscenes, but as Avatar, Beowulf and Pixar's back-catalogue have pushed computer-generated video into ubiquity, the videogame cutscene has begun to lose its distinct lustre.
Simultaneously, it's a cop out for advertisers to focus on graphics as a selling point, because they are so easy to demonstrate. But the game itself most certainly is not. The limits of TV advertising are as obvious as the limits of 2D in selling 3D. Game advertisements can not deliver a cut down version of a play experience in the way that, say, a movie trailer can a passively enjoyed film. Instead, games have demos and freemium business models. TV advertising, therefore, is much better placed to introduce high level concepts surrounding the potential experience - the premise, the game world. They are there to drive awareness and understanding. Graphics are an execution of that.
Of course, the ASA's axe must fall somewhere. When it sees an ad that claims to be something it isn't, no one is in a position to argue otherwise. As such, Square Enix should have known better. If the company is to be believed, it's paying the price for cutting corners in production rather than guilty of actively trying to mislead the public. But it stands to reason, however, that it has a responsibility, too, to step carefully when it represents the relative qualities of a 360 in the context of closely fought competition between Sony and Microsoft. Square Enix will suffer as a direct result of not being able to run the ad and therefore sell fewer products. But, at the same time, Microsoft will suffer in terms of the perception of its console and brand.
It will be interesting to see whether making an issue of graphics might conversely make them become important. The weight of the ASA's decision has the potential to add authority to what is a trivial concern in the minds of consumers and a firebrand subject among platform aficionados. What is clear right now, though, is that thirdparty publishers using the console manufacturers' brands in their advertising hold a great deal of power and responsibility for how the manufacturers appear to the outside world. That's both a scary thought for the manufacturer and a sobering one for the publisher.
Thom works for advertising agency TBWA\London. As you might expect, his opinions are his own. You can almost always find him on Twitter at @thomdinsdale.