in the future, people will see advertisement as the cultural heart attack that it truly is

i agree that it is ridiculous what people claim to be 'interactive'. again i think it comes down to the people marketed to, the advertising execs, don't have any idea what 'interactive' means. they just know it sounds good. Massive isn't lying, there is a 'form' of interactivity. looking at something could be considered interactive, if you try hard enough. in the meantime, 'interactive' gets to mean 'online' and interactive technology isn't forced to develop. not that i really want the in-game advertising billboards in Grand Theft Auto IV to be that sophisticated. Unless, of course, 'interactive' means you can blow them up.

Random thoughts you've inspired:

It'll probably happen sooner or later that some advertising in games becomes better than the games themselves as is often the case with TV shows.

Advertisers care about context only inasmuch as the show or game being consumed matches some kind of market demographic.

I'm sure advertisers know what interactive means. Game folk tend to think they have a corner on the term because it's at the core of video game technology. But this is just high brow posturing. Advertising execs are not stupid, and interactivity is not a particularly difficult concept to grok. It's perhaps only a matter of time before advertisers realize that compelling interactivity equates to addictiveness (another concept they understand).

the yaris ad execution was poor and if massive holds this up as the poster child for in game advertising, the industry will fail. I think smart product placement similiar to the movies and "interactive games" like Disaffected and the Axe campaign are techniques that will prevail.

This is definitely a subject that gets people fired up. At the risk of inciting more, I present a smaller, but fairly original case for in-game advertising.

www.cashsprint.com

We put brand names on cars and billboards in a racing game.