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.'"
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?
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:congratulations. (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must of missed all the news for the past month. "Guns" are the new "terrorism".
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: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:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Shady? Really? (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:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shady? Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the really stupid thing about the argument. Outlawing private ownership of pools would save more lives than outlawing guns. And pools have no positive attributes, they are a pure luxury item that kill many people each year. Guns on the other hand save people in many situations and are a tool that can be used for good at least sometimes.