How Videogames Help Fund the Arms Industry 410
FhnuZoag writes "Eurogamer has an expose of the shady world of games developers licensing guns. From the article: '"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. [...] 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 [Barett Rifles'] Vaughn.'"
How about just not naming them real names? (Score:3)
Why would you bother calling it by its real world name?
Just call it something else and don't pay.
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking more like counter strike handled it.
Instead of a desert eagle, they had a deagle, instead of a Arctic Warfare Magmun, they had the AWP. Stuff like that.
I think the BFG is far enough from real weapons to avoid licensing costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks are only good for the market you are in. There is in fact a company that sells a BFG(Big Frame Revolver) and id has no way to come after them. Id does not market or sell revolvers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I messed that up somehow, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking, the game Live for Speed does something similar with cars, and even makes them look a bit different, but the car guys know what they're really supposed to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Logo, the Movie!"
In which a graphical turtle will crawl around the screen drawing stuff under program control for an hour and a half...
...and it'd still be better and more original than at least half of what the movie industry is spewing these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry I have not played it for many years.
To me 1.6 was the last CS. I am not interested in any of this swat shield nonsense.
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Realism?
The old Ghost Recon had realism, in Call of Honor or Medal of Duty you can absorb far more damage than is realistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Hence the airquotes, no doubt. Such games sell a certain, specific image of war. And this article shows an aspect of the thinking that goes behind that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You're probably out of luck on the first one. The second one exists though: MBA Gyrojet [world.guns.ru]
.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to play through the original Ghost Recon again recently...I don't know how I ever got through that game before, I just don't have the patience for it now.
Re: (Score:2)
I love that kind of game. We played it on line in college and it was great.
Games these days are just to easy. Damn kids!
Re: (Score:3)
Realism isn't fun. No real soldier, no matter how well trained, is going to fight his way through hundreds of nazis/terrorists/monsters single-handed and come out alive. Only one of them needs to get in a lucky shot.
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, one guy with a rifle and a sub-machine gun killing like five hundred dudes, that would be totally unrealistic. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes realism like that is fun, in a game.
Certainly changes the tension.
Ok, I'm 12th level, so lets go cautious into the next room. How about "Noob mcJustarrived" check that door?
It changes XCOM play style.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to let you in on a little-spoken-of secret, but a LOT of those Medal of Honor stories (especially the ones awarded posthumously) are...ahem..."exaggerated."
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shut UP.
You can make a point and offer criticism without experiencing it.
can't walk a tight rope, but when I see someone fall off one I can say 'That wasn't good'
People who use that type of 'logic' are when is wrong with people today.
It's a legitimate concern.
Misplaced in this case becasue that event is pretty well documented.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a flesh wound.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm evidently too old to be playing such games: the increased visibility only helps me see my enemies' guns AFTER they shoot me in the head.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the conclusion I came to after reading the article. Not only do you save tons on licencing fees or potential legal headaches, but you're also free of the questionable ethics of advertising real firearms in the game.
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Just call it something else and don't pay.
For gods sake man, spoonfeed them some examples or we'll never see it happen. Like
Not to mention the all time classic:
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to make a game set in WW2, you model real WW2 weapons.
If your game is set anywhere from 1990 to 2050, and you're trying to model real-world combat situations (with varying degrees of accuracy), then you'll have to model real world firearms. Due to the durability of firearms and the essentially mature technology, you could expect current technology and models to be used for decades. Consider the 1911 pistol for example: that's not a just a model number, that's the year it was introduced. It's also the most common handgun used by serious competitors today.
Savvy gamers today just aren't going to buy it if their High Intensity Combat Operative character in the game is deploying with Generic Intermediate Caliber Select Fire Rifle firing the combat tested 5.44x40mm Solid Lead to Ashcanistan to fight the nefarious Ethnically and Ideologically Unidentifiable Terrorist Organization. They want their DEVGRU to drop out of a Lockheed C-130J into Timbuktu carrying a Colt M-4 Carbine with a Trijicon ACOG on top so they can put a 5.56mm NATO round into the tuches of a Al Qaeda splinter group that's trying to destroy a UN World Heritage site. (Licensing fees paid for all those trademarks.)
If you want to make stuff up, you've got to set your story a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, or some other equivalent narrative technique to put distance between what the player knows and the game-world contains. You can fake medieval weapons. You can't fake modern fire-arms in present-day settings.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they will. Maybe some gun nut gamer won't, but if it's a good game, they will still buy it.
Most gamer won't care if the gun you use is a pun on the real name.
Do you seriously think XCOM would fail if they didn't use real gun names? oh wait, they don't.
Re:How about just not naming them real names? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the Resident Evil series uses more generic names (or at least it used to). Goldeneye 007 (N64) is a good example of a game that uses similar-sounding names, such as PP7 instead of PPK. It doesn't really make that much of a difference in 99.9% of the situation.
However, there are people who like their games to be as authentic as possible. Would the Madden series be so popular if the teams were made-up? Would Gran Turismo be popular if it had fake cars? (Okay, it does have some fake cars, but the vast majority are real.) For a game that strives for realism, little details like names and model numbers make a big difference.
Furthermore, I have to object with the assertion that the licensing deals are "shady". It is the same kind of deal as is made with car manufacturers, sports teams, etc. To call it shady is to reveal your political bias.
Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
Re: (Score:2)
How can they copyright the look when so many are so close?
Without the trademarks can you really tell the difference between a COLT AR15 and a Bushmaster or an Olympic Arms? The patents on those designs have surely run out.
As far as I can tell for all but the newest guns the only issue should be trademarks.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they copyright the look when so many are so close?
Without the trademarks can you really tell the difference between a COLT AR15 and a Bushmaster or an Olympic Arms? The patents on those designs have surely run out.
As far as I can tell for all but the newest guns the only issue should be trademarks.
It's not that I don't agree, but how is that shady when the game developers are licensing the designs? If anything, that's a problem with the way copyright/trademark/patents work.
I don't really understand this article. Would it be less shady if the game developers just stuck brand names in their games without licenses? Would it be less shady if they were petitioning to the courts that rule the designs can't be copyrighted? Would it be less shady if the license agreements didn't come with a catch on usage? I'm pretty sure Disney wouldn't license Mickey to a game that intends to throw him into a wood chipper and would drop a bomb on Disneyland.
Maybe I'm looking for some deep meaning other than "oh, look, it's just like everything else branded but with guns"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is shady. Just a waste of money that could be profit.
I think it is just like everything else branded in games. Smart publishers should be charging the gun makers for the advertising. "You want the bushmaster name in our game you pay us, otherwise we will just go talk to all your competitors".
Re: (Score:3)
or even "better" pay us $MBucks and we won't have your guns used by the Bad Guys or portrayed as being defective/dangerous to the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must of missed all the news for the past month. "Guns" are the new "terrorism".
Re: (Score:3)
You must of missed all the news for the past month. "Guns" are the new "terrorism".
Not real guns mind you...they are perfectly fine, it's the fake guns that are a problem. [gamespot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, though they don't use that word (well, some of them do, calling the NRA terrorists, I shit you not.) The government uses the term "national security issue", which it seems lately they throw that term on just about everything they don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but first should be not deal with the more pressing evil. Like private pool ownership. Pool owners are a threat to everyone, and the worst part is that they largely target the very young.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
It's shady because the games publishers are (perhaps understandably) evasive about the amount of money they are funnelling into the weapons industry, and are working under direct conditions to portray guns in a positive manner so as to encourage gun sales, even as they claim to be non-political and not pushing violence.
5-10% of retail sales is a *lot*.
Re: (Score:3)
You could say that substituting any sort of industry for the weapons industry. And really, do you ever expect games publishers to tell you their budgets for anything? Or to work with an indu
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
5-10% of retail sales is a *lot*.
In fact, it is so freakin huge that it makes me doubt the veracity of the story.
10% of gross is going to be at least 20% of net. I just don't see anyone thinking that including trademarked gun designs is worth 20% of the profit of a video grame.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But remember, guns are evil right now in group think. So are video games. So if it involves guns and video games it must be double EEEEVIL.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember, guns are evil right now in group think.
Only if you get your information from the media/government complex. If you go talk to real people in person, you'll see that it's only the radical fringe that thinks that way. Trouble is, some of them were savvy enough to take control of the media in the 50's.
Re: (Score:3)
I am so tired of conservatives dodging question by labeling them as liberal.
I'm not a conservative and the media isn't liberal. Try stepping outside the box sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
What's so shady about that?
Given the media frenzy along with public sensitivity, the only thing I can think of is they've used the word 'gun' and 'game' in the same sentence thereby admitting to wrongdoing. Film at 11.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The arms manufacturers are actually anything but shady in the article, as they've been transparent about the entire process (the games industry would have looked a lot better in this article if they had acted the same way, rather than acting defensively, although we've no way of knowing exactly what questions they were asked).
This article does a great job pointing out the 'shadiness' of the NRA's about-face in participating in the video games industry, then turning around and declaring it the root of all evil. I think really, what this article demonstrates though if anything, is that the average consumer doesn't stop to think about how every realistic item that appears in media is probably either licensed or promotional.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This article does a great job pointing out the 'shadiness' of the NRA's about-face in participating in the video games industry, then turning around and declaring it the root of all evil.
The NRA does not represent the firearms industry; it represents firearms owners. They're not the "gun lobby", they're the "gun owners' lobby". The NRA therefore has nothing to do with gun manufacturers' licensing of realistic guns for video games. Based on Wayne LaPierre's recent statements, the NRA's leadership is most likely opposed to this practice.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Informative)
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
So, read the actual article.
The article's arguments, for the "TLDR" crowd, amount to this: .50; it was my favorite gun & skin from Counter-strike 1).
1. Like the candy cigarettes before them, the depiction of realistic guns--especially with the real names attached--amounts to advertisement towards a target population of young individuals, to influence them to purchase the real thing. They provide some anecdotal evidence that it works. As a personal anecdote, I know that it's worked on me (I own a BB gun that's a model of the USP
2. The "shady" part is that the game companies would, seemingly universally, prefer not to talk publicly about any of this (i.e., that there's any ongoing collaboration, licensing, or even two-way discussion between them and gun manufacturers). This is likely a socially-perceived "negative" topic, and therefore discussing it would likely negatively impact sales by casting their companies in a negative light.
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like candy cigarettes, any advertising of an inherently dangerous/deadly product towards an adolescent target audience probably should be carefully scrutinized, regulated, or eliminated.
No, that is incorrect. It is the parent's responsibility to scrutinize, regulate or eliminate undesired advertisements directed towards their children/adolescents (for any reason). It is not the Government's job. Period. Don't like the additional responsibility of being a parent, don't have kids.Also, kids aren't the only target audience of video games (especially of this type).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they'll turn out very well if we don't expose them to any "dangerous information" before then. Don't teach them about guns, or tools, or drugs or sex, or anything that might rock the boat (especially to question authority). They'll be fine to figure out all these things on their own with low information. That's how to be a good parent these days.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is shady about it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's shady because the condition of the licensing is to only show the good uses of a morally neutral tool.
In other words, the condition of the licensing is to use the game as a propaganda tool.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
if you are so hung up on morals, don't play games where violence is the core of the game
Re: (Score:2)
You can be moral, and distinguish between fantasy violence and the real world. Some prefer to keep it that way from start to end.
Re: (Score:2)
A large proportion of people oppose these companies, and would not like to think that their money is going to them, and were consuming intentional propaganda to glorify their products. I'm a FPS gamer, and I for one would reconsider purchasing future modern warfare style games given this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's not your case, but some people do care if the money they spend on a videogame ultimately goes to industries like the Arms Industry. It is perfectly valid, as a customer, to refuse to spend money on games that, due to copyright, end up supporting an industry they loathe (I may like playing a virtual FPS, but loathe an industry that makes money by putting guns in the hands of African children so they kill each other).
Yeah, but how far does that go? I don't want my money to go to a company that supports DRM, so that's easy. I also don't want my money going to Oracle. Does it make sense to not buy a game because the company that published it might have an ancillary backend database for something tangentially related? I don't want my money going to nuclear weapons, but the companies pay taxes to the government which, in part, helps fund the stockpile. I don't want my money going to child prostitutes but who knows what any
Vladof! Vladof! Vlaaaaaaadoooooooof! (Score:3)
I'm guessing Borderlands doesn't have this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if it's pirated, then no money goes to these people.
What Is Shady?? (Score:5, Insightful)
That they're licensing a company's depictions of a legal product? Can you explain how this would be different than licensing cars, planes, soft drinks, sports teams, comic book characters or anything else that goes into a video game? What exactly is new about this story that isn't already well known?
This article is pure flamebait. Slashdot should be better than this, but I guess the website traffic must be trending down.
Re: (Score:3)
"This article is pure flamebait. Slashdot should be better than this"
It's taken a steep dive in quality since the new overlords took over.
The idea of gun manufacturers being worried about image can play into the hands of those currently blatting about violent games having an effect in the real world.
I wouldn't be surprised if this gets linked to with the line accompanying "Gun manufacturers pay money to video games, thus proving they influence people."
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is new about this story that isn't already well known?
TBH, I'm surprised they charge licensing fees, at least for established game series. I would have suspected it operated more on an under-the-table product placement basis, ie the CEO gets a free rifle, the dev team gets some T-shirts, and the manufacturer gets their new gun front and center in the next CoD game's "big damn heroes" moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Do car games (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They do: http://jalopnik.com/5975846/you-can-virtually-drive-the-new-corvette-tomorrow [jalopnik.com]
Re:Do car games - Yes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and usually the conditions include not showing the car getting wrecked in a crash, which is why Burnout and GTA type games all have to use phony cars.
Why this is bad (Score:2)
I agree with the above posters that licensing the right to use a the title is a fair practice. What is not fair is the restrictions placed on how the item can be used in the game. You are licensing the right to use the name of a real world weapon, and end up signing away the rights of how a gun can be used and who could use them in a game. How is that a fair depiction of the real world? It's like payi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why this is bad (Score:4, Informative)
Van Halen did that out of legitimate safety concerns.
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp
The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide an easy way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read (and complied with). As Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth explained in his autobiography: Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We'd pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through.
The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say "Article 148: There will be fifteen amperage voltage sockets at twenty-foot spaces, evenly, providing nineteen amperes . . ." This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was: "There will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation."
So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl . . . well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening.
Seems backwards to me (Score:2)
Gray area (Score:2, Informative)
The use of real items in a fictional context is a very gray area in Law. The idea that any manufactured item requires a license when it appears in a film, book or game is plainly a nonsense. Consider an urban scene in a movie. Within seconds, tens of thousands of manufactured items are visible, each with a product name and a company that produced them. Do you REALLY think the fact that these items are onscreen requires the produces to seek permission, or gain licenses?
Does this situation even change just be
Who Can Blame Them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bushmaster's parent company, Cerberus Capital, has decided to divest itself [cnn.com] of Bushmaster and the other arms companies under the Freedom Group umbrella. This was ostensibly done in response to the Newtown shooting, i.e. on account the illegal actions undertaken by a deranged boy, and not even one of their customers, with the use of one of their products. Certain segments of the public blame the company itself.
Imagine for a moment that the same company had knowingly allowed its products to be used in video games for nefarious purposes. Imagine the game was like Carmageddon from the nineties and you could get extra points for shooting hookers. Or, more likely, you could use the gun when acting as terrorists in some C-Strike like bombing scenario. And then that same gun with the same brand was used in real life to do harm to innocents. What would the repercussions be then? Some will say that the requirement the gun only be used by the 'good guys' is PR or propaganda, and they're partly right. But there's another side to this. A company who can be blamed for the misuse of its products has to try all the harder to defend itself and its image from association with that misuse.
Shouldn't the headline read... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:congratulations. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Only the "botched" part. The rest suggests that our government had more of a clue than normal.
/ Still waiting on that 1998 budget...
Re: (Score:3)
So the government botched a sting operation called Fast and Furious and you're going to frame them as if it's standard operating procedure?
Only the "botched" part. The rest suggests that our government had more of a clue than normal.
Oh, I don't know. Somehow the FBI can figure out how to catch a terrorist who wants to bomb a building without letting them actually build a working bomb. Yet the ATF couldn't figure out how to catch an illegal buyer without actually letting them get a working weapon?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all firearms manufacturers are in the gun running business, certainly not any reputable branded firearms makers,
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that, I'd just change the name.
That's not an AK, that's a BK. There's also a 1/10 chance it fires a hamburger.
It doesn't crit so it's balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Personalty, I rely on high-powered "lasers" strapped to dangerous predators.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as we're whipping out anecdotes as evidence, I've played lots of gun games but I didn't actually get interested in the real life versions at all until I was invited to shoot trap.
I think that positive light angle is probably overblown. I mean, it's not like the bad guys aren't also armed, or that the game will keep you from dying because you're holding a magic Colt branded M4, or the game prevents you from shooting unarmed civilians while equipping a Remington but will let you do it if you equip a B