{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Snake Plissken:
3/22/2013 7:16:42 PM
22
How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers
I'd recommend reading the article. The whole thing - generally about morally dubious marketing techniques employed by gun manufacturers through video games - is pretty interesting, but there's one section that really stands out:
In order to be able to use the official names of real guns in their games, video game developers/publishers pay arms manufacturers for the license to do so.
[quote]Today licensed weapons are commonplace in video games, but the deals between game makers and gun-manufacturer are shrouded. Not one of the publishers contacted for this article was willing to discuss the practice. (EA: "I'm afraid we can't progress this." Activision: "Not something we can assist with at present... My hands are tied." Codemasters: "We're focused on our racing titles these days." Crytek: "We can't help you with that request." Sega: "[This] doesn't sit comfortably." Sony: "I can't help with this I'm afraid.")[/quote]
[quote]However, the gun makers are more forthcoming. "[It's] absolutely the same as with cars in games," says Barrett's Vaughn. "We must be paid a royalty fee - either a one-time payment or a percentage of sales, all negotiable. Typically, a licensee pays between 5 per cent to 10 per cent retail price for the agreement. But we could negotiate on that."
According to Vaughn, the cost of the license fee depends on the reputation and achievements of the developer in question. "It could be a few thousand dollars or many thousands, based on past projects and projected sales," he explains. The way in which the weapon is presented in the game is important too. "We must give prior approval to the image or logo in order to protect the brand's integrity."[/quote]
[quote]"We want to know explicitly how the rifle is to be used, ensuring that we are shown in a positive light... Such as the 'good guys' using the rifle," says Vaughn. His company insists that its gun isn't "used by individuals, organisations, countries or companies that would be shown as enemies of the United States or its citizens."[/quote]
Well, I'm certainly not going to be buying any modern military shooters for the forseeable future.
English
#Offtopic
-
Instead of games getting permission from arms manufacturers, arms manufacturers need to get permission from games.
-
1 ReplyThat makes sense, they are using the weapons' names and designs, so they should have to pay the manufacturer. I find it perplexing that people consider arms manufacturers to be immoral.
-
This seems like standard practice across all business. I don't see what the issue here is.
-
1 ReplyEdited by NILLOC: 3/27/2013 3:26:22 AMWhy are you complaining ? I'm pretty sure that H&K or any other gun company is within their rights to want their gun to not be used by Al-Quadea or some Somalian Pirates in a game.
-
...duh? What's the problem here?
-
This wasn't obvious?
-
Derp. Of course they make them pay royalties for using trademarked names and symbols, just like everyone else. IS this truly a surprise to anyone here?
-
I fail to see how this is surprising or morally dubious in any way. Game companies have pay to royalties in order to use trademarked gun names, logos, and designs? No shit, Sherlock.
-
... Duh. The real world weapons that are used in video games are property of their respective owners, it's not like video game companies just model it and are exempt from paying to use the weapon's name and image. Who didn't know this?
-
WHAT THE -blam!- PAYING FOR SHOWING TRADE MARKED THINGS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S SO BAD
-
41 RepliesThat's pretty -blam!-ed up. I now support piracy for these sorts of games.
-
I fail to see the problem.
-
I fail to see how this is shocking at all. A company is paid royalties for its designs or images being used or depicted by another company. That's how it's always been. What is so surprising, shocking, or evil about that?
-
Oh my god. What the hell do people see wrong with this? Of course gun manufacturers have to get a royalty, I mean, their designs are being used. Car games are a great analogy.
-
It's officially a moral practice in my eyes to pirate modern military shooters. Too bad those games are shit to begin with.
-
1 ReplyEdited by God: 3/22/2013 10:31:57 PMSo in order to use trademarked names and images they have to pay royalties?
-
So what?
-
1 ReplyEdited by banj0: 3/22/2013 9:23:58 PMSo? These are reputable companies, not illegal arms dealers.
-
10 RepliesI want my five minutes back. The article was very long-winded about something that, as said by someone else, should be common sense. I doubt that anyone here is ignorant of the fact that racing games must license from the manufacturers the names and likenesses of the automobiles they feature in-game. Why would you not assume the same to be true of other commercial products? There's nothing morally dubious about this, and especially not on the part of the arms makers. Let us keep in mind that the developers decide what guns go in the games, and therefore what licenses are bought -- not the arms makers. And licensing gun names and images is no more sinister than licensing the same for cars. Unless you think it's equally morally dubious for there to be an actual Ford Fiesta or Ferrari F40 in Gran Turismo, in which case you're probably a nutcase who shouldn't be listened to anyway. tl;dr: duh, no biggie.
-
2 RepliesIsn't all of that article common sense?
-
It was the first conclusion i came to about video games that contains guns just seems like common sense ya know
-
2 Replieslol you guys. of course they do things like this. they do much much more than just this.
