Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck Games

How Videogames Help Fund the Arms Industry 410

Posted by timothy
from the bidding-for-bad-guy-guns-seems-lucrative-too dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Videogames Help Fund the Arms Industry

Comments Filter:
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:46PM (#42752569)

    Why would you bother calling it by its real world name?

    Just call it something else and don't pay.

    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:49PM (#42752611)
      Something like the BFG9000?
      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:51PM (#42752627)

        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.

        • by Jerslan (1088525)
          id probably has a trademark on BFG. With it being an iconic weapon in their Doom series.
          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            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.

        • 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.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)
          Because you'd probably get sued for copyright infringement if you weren't damned careful. This is the bed the "IP" groups made and now we all have to sleep in it, in a world where everything can and is copyrighted it all ends up with somebody getting a check somewhere when you make any damned thing anymore.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by nugatory78 (971318)
            this topic makes me curious. Why do games bother to license the names and images? if I make a movie and want a gun in it, I don't ask permission of the manufacturer, I can even use its real name. Same goes for any real world product that gets used in the movies. How is using it in a game any different? Of course as hairyfeet points out, there is a lot of new laws on the books that could change all the rules. The obvious answer is that they will sue you, and try their best to make it unprofitable for you.
            • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:46PM (#42754069) Journal

              Actually most of the products you can identify in movies have either had the rights paid for by the movie company or if the movie is a big name flick will often get money from the company in return for showing their product in a favorable light. Why do you think every person that uses a laptop in a movie is always using a MacBook when IRL that is less than 10% of the population? Product placement.

              So its not like you haven't been seeing the same thing in hollywood for years, with the smaller movies paying a fee for licensing while the big names get the product for free or even get a check for showing it, its common practice. Watch the horribly bad movie "Jack & Jill" sometime which rumor has it even though it bombed Sandler and pals actually came out ahead thanks to how much product placement was in that movie. they might as well have called it "Jack and Jill, sponsored by *" for all the products from dunkin donuts to Sony electronics you see on the screen. i honestly don't think there is 4 minutes in the whole movie where a logo isn't visible, its THAT obvious.

    • by Jerslan (1088525) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:52PM (#42752649)
      Because that would destroy the "realism" of games like Call of Duty... People who play those games want to pretend they're using the ACTUAL rifles that are used by the Military.
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Realism?

        The old Ghost Recon had realism, in Call of Honor or Medal of Duty you can absorb far more damage than is realistic.

      • Except that on multiplayer, everyone seems to select paint schemes that make their guns look like nerf guns.

        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.
    • 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.

    • by discord5 (798235) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:00PM (#42752771)

      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

      • Sith & Messy
      • Cold
      • Kohlslanikov
      • Ligal

      Not to mention the all time classic:

      • Heckling Cock
    • by gmcraff (61718) <gmcraff@NOsPaM.yahoo.com> on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:14PM (#42753029)
      Verisimilitude.

      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.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        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.

    • by Cinder6 (894572) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:41PM (#42753305)

      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)

    by Applekid (993327) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:51PM (#42752625)

    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?

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      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)

        by Applekid (993327) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:00PM (#42752781)

        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"

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          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".

          • 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.

      • I figured that they thought the licensed guns were a cheap way to add a "realistic" touch to the game.
    • Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wisnoskij (1206448) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:06PM (#42752873) Homepage

      You must of missed all the news for the past month. "Guns" are the new "terrorism".

      • by trdrstv (986999)

        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)

        by AlphaWolf_HK (692722)

        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:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Informative)

      by FhnuZoag (875558) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:06PM (#42752885)

      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*.

      • by Jiro (131519)

        t'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.

        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)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:24PM (#42753823)

        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)

      by ducomputergeek (595742) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:08PM (#42752917)

      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)

        by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:47PM (#42754089) Homepage Journal

        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.

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      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)

      by DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:16PM (#42753057)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • Re:Shady? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:25PM (#42753829) Journal

        But honestly how could you expect them to act ANY differently when moral watchdog types have been treating them like 50s watchdogs treated rock n' roll for what? 30+ years now? I mean what was one of the FIRST THINGS that the media start harping about when the Sandy Hook shooting happened? "Did Lanza...gasp!...Play...dum dum dum...video games?" I swear I saw articles with that as the fucking headline not 24 hours after the damned shooting!

        So I don't blame the video games industry one little bit, they've had wrinkled old farts trying to get them since the days of fricking Night Trap. Remember its not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you, and articles like TFA show that the answer to that is a definite YES they are out to get the video games industry.

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      because gunz are teh scary these days and anyone who supports guns by any means at all is equally teh evol. At least thats what the media tells me
    • Re:Shady? Really? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Silentknyght (1042778) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:23PM (#42753139)

      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:
      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 .50; it was my favorite gun & skin from Counter-strike 1).

      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)

        by zzsmirkzz (974536) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:26PM (#42753839)

        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:4, Insightful)

      by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:14PM (#42753701) Journal

      Because some on the ultra far left don't like anything to do with guns or violence and try to make anything to do with either look evil/shady/sexist/racist or whatever other PC "bad" words you can affix?

      Look I don't care what you believe as long as I'm allowed to believe differently, the classic "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" argument but just because you don't like something doesn't make it "bad" or wrong or evil, that is classic political demonization of those that disagree. i had an argument recently with an ultra lefty who was moaning about the lack of female avatars in modern shooters. I simply said "Take a game like Bulletstorm where I get a "ball buster" achievement for blowing a guy's crotch off. Would you have a problem if there were females in the game and there was a "sex change" achievement for blowing off her tits?"

      The answers i got illustrated better than anything how you are NOT allowed to think differently than them because i was just a monster for daring to even suggest that, their answer was NOT to simply not have females in the game as devs do now but to remove the violence against the males which if you are gonna remove the violence in games why the fuck even call them games anymore? Just call them Second Life and let everybody be forced to have tea parties and shit.

      At the end of the day I do NOT give a rat's ass about hyper realistic shooters but you know what? I would NEVER EVER say you shouldn't be able to play 'em. if shooting a gun so perfectly modeled that even the bullet drop is accurate to within a tenth of an inch over 1000 yards makes you happy? More power to you and I'm glad somebody will cater to your tastes, boring as i find them. But just because i personally don't care for something doesn't give me the right to demonize anybody that does, but sadly we see that behavior on both the ultra left (anything they consider violent or nationalistic) and on the right (the poor and minorities to a certain degree) but we need to call that shit when it happens and instantly dismiss it as the bullshit that it is. You can have a discussion without demonizing the other side and if the ONLY way you can make your argument is to make the other side "evil" then perhaps the problem isn't the other side but the shakiness of your argument.

  • Who didn't already know this?
    • by Sperbels (1008585)
      I didn't. But then, I don't really have an issue with the arms industry so I don't care. Hell, my tax dollars fund the arms industry. Not a damn thing I could do about it even if I cared.
    • by Migraineman (632203) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:22PM (#42753135)
      I would imagine that this situation exists for games featuring cars, airplanes, or any other product that has a corporate brand identity. But a headline decrying "Video Games Fund the Automotive Industry" just doesn't have any punch.
  • I don't understand what is shady about licensing product names, or why someone playing a FPS would care.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mvdwege (243851)

      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.

      • Why is this shady? If McDonalds allowed the use of their franchise in GTA, wouldn't they want a say in how it is used?
      • by alen (225700)

        if you are so hung up on morals, don't play games where violence is the core of the game

        • You can be moral, and distinguish between fantasy violence and the real world. Some prefer to keep it that way from start to end.

  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:53PM (#42752655)

    I'm guessing Borderlands doesn't have this issue.

  • What Is Shady?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:53PM (#42752657)

    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.

    • by Hartree (191324)

      "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."

    • 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.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:01PM (#42752797) Journal

    ...do the same for cars? Just wondering.

    • Yes. A relative of mine works for a company that wanted to do a racing sim and they eventually gave up because of the nightmare that was trying to get permission to use real cars like Porsche or Corvette.
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        I seem to recall a rumour that they got rid of the damage in the Need For Speed series because the can manufacturers didn't like seeing their cars dented up and performing poorly after a crash. I haven't played the games recently, but the last one I played and liked was NFS IV, because it had real damage, and you didn't have the computer cars sideswiping you to run you off the track, because their car would get damaged as well. It was really fun to play a racing game where you would almost garaunteed end
    • 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.

  • "We want to know explicitly how the rifle is to be used, ensuring that we are shown in a positive light"

    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

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      why not? for years car makers wouldnt allow "real damage" or in some cases any damage shown on their cars in racing games. How is this any different?
    • Re:Why this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by avandesande (143899) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:46PM (#42753355) Journal
      Van Halen used to have a clause in their performance contracts that they must be provided with a bowl of MM's with the brown ones picked out. What does 'fairness' have to do with a legal civil contract?
      • Re:Why this is bad (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:37PM (#42753971)

        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.

  • After reading the article it seems the gun manufacturers should pay the game companies for advertising if the developer shows the gun in a good light. Based on the article gun sales can be significantly higher when they are featured in a game.
  • Gray area (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @02:57PM (#42753473)

    "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,"

    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.

  • by GigG (887839) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @03:53PM (#42754147)
    The Arms Industry helps game makers by letting them, for a price, use the name of their product.

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

Working...