Incentivized vs non-incentivized ads from a game dev perspective

A lot of resources on the internet which on to use to advertise your game/product and comparison between the two.

But no resources whatsoever on another question - comparison between the two approaches from a game dev/game publisher perspective as means for monetization.

It is clear that:

1. Non-incentivized ads are more likely to lead to a user engagement with the ad (click/install) than incentivized ads (therefore more beneficial for the developer). However they disrupt the UX, and in some cases this may lead to player loss.
2. Incentivized ads are initiated by the user and with the user's permission - however they are usually used to obtain some resource (coins/keys) or to continue the current run, etc. They do not disrupt the UX as much as the non-incentivized ads. They also lead to much less engagement by the user with the ad.

From my personal perspective it looks ridiculous looking at statements such as "Watch ad to continue", or "Watch ad to get 1 key". Well, ok, I will watch the ad but surely will not engage with it. My sole purpose will be to wait for 30 seconds and get the promised reward. And that is all. As far as I know ads are monetized in CPC/CPI manner and not CPM (cost per views), so it wouldn't matter for the developer if I've seen the ad or not.

Are really incentivized ads UX-friendly enough/beneficial enough to replace the non-incentivized ads in most games?

So what are your thoughts/experience on the subject? Do incentivized ads work, do they bring any revenue, or it is negligible enough to skip this monetization source, or rather look at non-incentivized?

Thank you!

 

Hm...complex answer. Normally I'd tend to say incentivized ads are bad, but there are applications that could count as fitting for it. Depends on the game.

 

sure you can fit then one way or the other, but... do they bring revenue?

Take Subway Surfers for example. It has such ads for

1. Continue the current run
2. Get extra keys

Since they put them in I guess they are not completely useless but I want to ask you guys if you have own experience with it

 

It's a touchy subject. I predict a majority of people would be inclined to say against it, myself included, without realizing that it's actually in a lot of games we play and we never even take note of it. I'm not sure, didn't Pokemon Go have a 'watch video and receive coin' feature? Widely popular game for its time, and still I had to really think about the games I've played before it popped into my head.

Edit: Sorry I didn't answer your question. That's one of the game types I'd presuppose to be inclined to go with it well, infinite runner games. Others of course, but that comes to mind right now. No matter what it is, the same rule always applies as applies in every other aspect of online commerce like this. Think in 1% conversion rates, it's eventually going to tie down to; can you pull in enough eyeballs to get a satisfactory 1% conversion rate, or do you need to rethink your model?

Edit 2: Casual and Hyper Casual games tend to work better for incentivizing, in my humble opinion.

 

The game I am working on I would compare more to something like Brawl Stars, MOBA-like genre.
The option to put incentivized ads would be to get "keys" to unlock loot boxes.

Recently I saw a similar approach in a featured game on the App Store, called "Super Spell Heores"

 

so it looks like no one in this forum has ever tried incentivized ads ?

 

Hm, also a suiting genre. If you're charging for keys, I'd put a cap on how many times you can do it so there is still incentive to spend money. Unless of course, there's a higher tier item that's in play. A lot of people will give coins for viewing ads while they keep their higher tier virtual items on the cash only list. However, supply would also need to equate to a demand, so it could also be the best idea. I recommend trial and error.

 

Well in my opinion, Aren't we all Incentivized in the end?
Users aren't watching ads without a plus for them.