bit-gamer.net

EA ceases all gun-brand licence deals

EA ceases all gun-brand licence deals

EA has opted to cease the long-running practice of paying firearms manufacturers to include their trademarks in its games, and is willing to go to court to defend its decision.

Electronic Arts has announced that it will no longer pay gun manufacturers a licensing fee to use the names and likenesses of their products in its games, ending an ongoing controversy surrounding stealth advertising of weaponry to a young audience.

If you've ever wondered why first-person shooters often have oddly-named firearms, the answer is a legal one: gun manufacturers protect their intellectual property most vociferously, making sure that while rival manufacturers may be able to copy the look and feel of their firearms they can never copy the name. A Colt Python is always manufactured by the Colt company, for example, and woe betide any other manufacturer who uses the Python - or, worse still, Colt - marque.

In the early days of gaming, when the initial wave of first-person shooters appeared, nobody really gave much thought to this matter. Graphics were such that it could be hard to tell exactly what it was you were supposed to be shooting with, and while the pistol in Id Software's Wolfenstein 3D may have ostensibly been a Luger it was in reality a somewhat mushy conglomeration of pixels that could equally have been a piece of plumbing equipment. Even its next-generation successor, Doom, simply gave its firearms generic names: the pistol was simply the Pistol, and the shotgun the Shotgun. Only the BFG-9000, the game's biggest weapon, received anything like a proper designation, and nobody could accuse that plasma-spitting monstrosity of being based on a real-life weapon.

As technology progressed, however, manufacturers started sniffing around for some of that lucrative gaming cash. The first to be hit were racing games: suddenly you had to start paying a license fee if you wanted your game to include a Subaru or Ferrari. The gun manufacturers would follow, leading to games like GoldenEye on the N64 which skirted the issue by giving clearly-recognisable firearms like the Walther PPK the name PP7, and the Heckler & Koch MP5K the name D5K. While the design of the weapons remained the same, their designations changed to avoid the potential of trademark infringement.

Soon, gamers started demanding more realism in their games, however - and companies like Electronic Arts, Activision and others were quick to oblige. Forging deals with weapons manufacturers, games like Call of Duty started to include real-world weapons - not just in their overall design, but in their names too. It became commonplace to see brands like Colt, Walther, Smith & Wesson and Israel Military Industries popping up on-screen when you unlocked a new weapon.

In recent years, however, the relationship has been a source of controversy. Gun manufacturers have been accused of using games to advertise their products to impressionable teenagers, who - in parts of the US, at least - can grow up to own real-world versions of in-game weaponry like the giant .50 calibre Barrett sniper rifle seen in numerous militaristic titles. Last year, Electronic Arts itself was brought under the spotlight when it signed a deal that allowed gamers to buy real military equipment from links located on its Medal of Honor: Warfighter micro-site. Once spotted by the press, the site went dark with EA officially ending all cross-promotional activity with military equipment vendors by the end of the year.

The company continued to fund weapons manufacturers through licensing deals, however, not wishing to go back to the days of the PP7 and DK5. Now it says that it won't be doing so any longer - potentially souring the previously mutually beneficial relationship between games developers and weapons manufacturers, which often includes all-expenses-paid trips to see - and use - real-life weapons and support in recording audio for use in games.

Speaking to Reuters, EA's Frank Gibeau explained that he is latterly of the opinion that games developers shouldn't need to pay for a licence just to use real-world firearms in their titles. 'We're telling a story and we have a point of view,' he claimed in an interview with the news agency. 'A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt,' for example.'

It's an interesting approach: Colt is a registered trademark, and thus protected in law - but Gibeau is claiming that such protection doesn't extend to fictional use, only to other manufacturers attempting to pass off products as being produced or approved by Colt itself. Thus, Gibeau is claiming, EA can get away with including a Colt M16 in its next game, and calling it just that, but not realising a game called Colt of Honor.

For the firearms manufacturers, EA's decision to end its license agreements is going to lead to a difficult decision. On the one hand, it's a loss of revenue and - potentially - a loss of control over their closely-guarded brands. On the other, the free advertising each company gets from having its products included in the games will continue - and that may be worth far, far more than the license agreements themselves.

The move comes at a time when weapons manufacturers and developers of first-person shooters are under increasing scrutiny, following several high-profile fatal shootings in the US. When gun control is a hot topic, it might be a good idea for manufacturers to simply accept EA's decision and sit quietly down, lest they draw too much attention to themselves over what is an incredibly emotionally-charged topic.

As for Gibeau's theory as to the freedom of fictional creations, that will be tested in June when EA takes on Bell Helicopter in the courts over the unlicensed use of the company's vehicles in Battlefield 3.

41 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
bowman 8th May 2013, 11:56 Quote
Uh

Colt and Bushmaster are two separate brands.. but whatever.
Gareth Halfacree 8th May 2013, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Colt and Bushmaster are two separate brands.. but whatever.
Whoopsie - my mistake. I'll go and fix that now, ta.
sotu1 8th May 2013, 12:12 Quote
You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!
damien c 8th May 2013, 12:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!

It's just like those people who have anti air artilery in the back garden.

We are though talking about a country that allows a 5 year old to shoot guns, and be able to kill his sister with that gun.

Civilians do not need Sniper Rifles or Assault Rifles etc but since the American Goverment seems to think that mass shootings are not a problem, it will never change.


Article about 5 year old from The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/may/03/five-year-old-shoots-toddler-sister-rifle-video

Quote:
The children's uncle, David Mann, described the accident as 'something you can't prepare for'


Sorry but it can be prepared for by not giving a 5 year old a gun let alone a loaded gun.
stanonwheels 8th May 2013, 12:36 Quote
Doesn't everyone prefer crazy made up guns anyway? The AR2's way more satisfying to fire than some generic call of duty thing with a name like a fridge/freezer.
Gareth Halfacree 8th May 2013, 12:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!
You sure can: costs about the same as a small car, but still. Hell, it's perfectly legal to buy and sell fully-automatic sub-machineguns and machineguns, providing they were manufactured and registered prior to the National Firearms Act 1986. That's how come people can own GE Miniguns, as seen on Mythbusters. The people with the truck? They're not military - they're civilians who picked up a Minigun registered prior to the NFA.
DragunovHUN 8th May 2013, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!
Not that you should need an argument, but you'd buy a precise long ranged rifle for hunting or sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

We are though talking about a country that allows a 5 year old to shoot guns, and be able to kill his sister with that gun.
Pretty sure killing children is still illegal... overexhaggerate much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

Civilians do not need Sniper Rifles or Assault Rifles etc but since the American Goverment seems to think that mass shootings are not a problem, it will never change.
How many of the recent mass shootings were done with "sniper rifles" or "assault rifles"?

Oh god what am I doing it's another gun law discussion on a tech site.
Sheiken 8th May 2013, 13:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
You can buy a Sniper Rifle in the US?! What kind of self defense argument is there to own a Sniper Rifle?!
Not that you should need an argument, but you'd buy a precise long ranged rifle for hunting or sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

We are though talking about a country that allows a 5 year old to shoot guns, and be able to kill his sister with that gun.
Pretty sure killing children is still illegal... overexhaggerate much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

Civilians do not need Sniper Rifles or Assault Rifles etc but since the American Goverment seems to think that mass shootings are not a problem, it will never change.
How many of the recent mass shootings were done with "sniper rifles" or "assault rifles"?

Oh god what am I doing it's another gun law discussion on a tech site.

Hmmmm. Your username tells me that you are completely unbiased.
modfx 8th May 2013, 13:16 Quote
Does this mean that Valve have always refused to pay up? I've always wondered why the CS guns have different name.
blacko 8th May 2013, 13:21 Quote
from a gamining POV this may mean we get more weapons in games.......


hurahhh
dactone 8th May 2013, 13:27 Quote
This thread escalated away from the subject quickly :/
Gareth Halfacree 8th May 2013, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by modfx
Does this mean that Valve have always refused to pay up? I've always wondered why the CS guns have different name.
Yes and no: Counter-Strike started off life as a third-party mod for Half-Life, created by a bunch of modders and released for free. Clearly, nobody was going to front up a few thousand for a licence in that case, so they went for the age-old approach of using recognisable-yet-not-clearly-trademark-infringing designations for the weapons. When Valve picks up the developers and turns it into a real product, the old names stick - partly because fans would complain if things were suddenly called something else, and partly, I'm sure, because that way Valve saves some cash and doesn't get splashed all over the papers as providing funding to arms manufacturers (see EA et al.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
from a gamining POV this may mean we get more weapons in games.
I always used to love it when you picked up a game in a shop, turned the box over and saw the bullet point (how appropriate) which read "OVER TWELVE WEAPONS!" So, that'd be thirteen weapons, then?
lacuna 8th May 2013, 14:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

Civilians do not need Sniper Rifles or Assault Rifles etc but since the American Goverment seems to think that mass shootings are not a problem, it will never change.
How many of the recent mass shootings were done with "sniper rifles" or "assault rifles"?

Oh god what am I doing it's another gun law discussion on a tech site.


Sandy Hook. How many more do you need?
DragunovHUN 8th May 2013, 14:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Sandy Hook. How many more do you need?

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

Even if he had used the rifle, all reports mention an AR-15 "style" "assault weapon" which is just a semi-auto, not an assault rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiken
Hmmmm. Your username tells me that you are completely unbiased.

Yes, I have some experience in the subject matter, that kinda comes in handy when arguing about something, wouldn't you agree? For one thing I know what the legal definitions are for various weapon types in the US. "Assault weapon" has no real meaning, it's just a media buzz word that describes a scary military-looking firearm regardless of its function.
Shirty 8th May 2013, 15:01 Quote
All weapons used in anger are by definition 'assault weapons'.

/pedantry
Guinevere 8th May 2013, 15:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
All weapons used in anger are by definition 'assault weapons'.

Really? What does being angry have to do with it? (I'm being pedantic too)

I think you are deliberately confusing two linked but slightly different meanings, one is "Make a physical attack on. Make a physical or verbal attack on someone" while the other is "A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy."

You can 'assault' someone with a large inflatable banana, but inflatable bananas make poor 'assault weapons' if engaged in a military assault.

If a military commander ordered his troops to launch an assault on an defended building, he's not asking them to go up to it and kick it about a bit.

And don't get me started on discussing whether or not assault is a verb or a noun as it's very clear that the answer is 'yes'.
schmidtbag 8th May 2013, 15:47 Quote
You can't quite generalize buying guns in the US because you can't buy a sniper just anywhere you want. I prefer to think of the country as more of 5 or 6 separate countries under 1 name - mostly in a cultural perspective. Many of the negative stereotypes only apply to the southern and mid-western states (and Alaska). The southern states are where it's the easiest to buy a gun. You can go to Wal Mart and buy a gun there. As far as I'm aware, you don't need a license to buy most guns down there, just an ID. In some areas, it's uncommon to find a household that doesn't have one. However, in a state like Massachusetts, where I'm from, it's the complete opposite. You'll be lucky if you can even own a handgun, and you need a license for pepper spray - a relatively expensive license. Interestingly, MA has some nasty crimes due to the fact that criminals know people have no way of defending themselves.


Anyways more on topic, while I hate EA, I think it's a shame they had to be accused of such things. I don't think creating a fictional weapon is going to make a teenager (who, according to the ratings, shouldn't be playing most of these games anyway) less inclined to buy a gun if he really felt like it, just as much as violent video games are as unlikely to encourage a kid to shoot up a school.
ev1lm1nd666 8th May 2013, 15:54 Quote
This is simply EA saying F U, If you want more money, come take us to court. Now if it were Activision doing this first I bet there could be a court battle pretty quickly based on how many Remington branded guns there were in MW3 for instance...

There will only be an issue if all the gun makers band together to push this through the courts otherwise I can't see this going anywhere...

As for the whole U.S.A.+ guns argument, easy way to solve the issue, force everyone applying for a gun licence to sit an IQ test before hand, at the very least, it'll stop idiots buying them legally.

I have one question for the (other) pro gun nuts, why in the name of all that is (un)holy do hunters need a .50 Cal anti-materiel rifle for deer hunting? I mean, did all the deer line up nicely so they could kill em all with a single bullet? :}
Shirty 8th May 2013, 16:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Enhanced pedantry snip

OK then. How about:

Most semi-automatic, magazine-fed firearms used in anger against human beings are by definition 'assault weapons'?
schmidtbag 8th May 2013, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev1lm1nd666
As for the whole U.S.A.+ guns argument, easy way to solve the issue, force everyone applying for a gun licence to sit an IQ test before hand, at the very least, it'll stop idiots buying them legally.
I agree with the concept of this but not the type of test. Using a gun isn't so much about intelligence but motivation. Buy one for hunting or protection, go ahead. Buy one with a history of anger problems or psychopathy, and that'll be a problem. In other words, it should just be a simple psych test to see if you're mentally STABLE enough to own a gun. I'd trust a good-hearted autistic child with a gun than the CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation.
Quote:
I have one question for the (other) pro gun nuts, why in the name of all that is (un)holy do hunters need a .50 Cal anti-materiel rifle for deer hunting? I mean, did all the deer line up nicely so they could kill em all with a single bullet? :}
I'd like to know this too haha.
damien c 8th May 2013, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Not that you should need an argument, but you'd buy a precise long ranged rifle for hunting or sport.



Pretty sure killing children is still illegal... overexhaggerate much?


How many of the recent mass shootings were done with "sniper rifles" or "assault rifles"?

Oh god what am I doing it's another gun law discussion on a tech site.

Fair point it was a mistype by me.

What it should have said is

"We are though talking about a country that allows a 5 year old to shoot guns, and because he was allowed to shoot the gun legally he was then able to accidently kill his sister with that gun."

As for the mass shootings part as has been mentioned there was the Sandy Hook shooting which by definition was done with a Assault Rifle since, the definition of a Assault Rifle is a Rifle which is Fully/Semi Automotic Magazine Fed Rifle.







As for the topic at hand, I don't care what the guns are called in a game because we all normally find one or two that we like to use and then remember what they are called, regardless of what they are called.
Harlequin 8th May 2013, 17:09 Quote
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/carbon_15.asp

can be made full auto using a conversion kit made before 1986. legally.


an assault rifle is , by definition , a Rifle with selective fire , using an intermediate (5.56nato or 7.62nato or similar Russian types) cartridge with a detachable magazine. The Stg44 is renowned to be the father of the modern assault rifle.

the Armalite AR-15 (which became the M-16 is US military service) was designed to be an assault rifle for both military and civilian use.
ModSquid 8th May 2013, 18:29 Quote
You're all missing the point - guns don't kill people, rappers do!

GLC had it right.
LordPyrinc 8th May 2013, 18:57 Quote
ON TOPIC POST: I think EA has a point about the use of the name in a fictional setting, books being the precedent for their argument. I can't believe they have actually been paying manufactures license fees. Quite the contrary, I would think it should be the manufacturers paying EA for product placement (think Coke, Doritos, <insert brand name here> in movies).
Parafilm 8th May 2013, 20:56 Quote
It's a fair point from EA but at what point does it stop? Will racing games manufacturers start calling what is obviously a Ferrari an Italiano 400 or something? Then claim it's OK as you could probably write it in a book and get away with it.
The difference is books don't generally show pictures of a gun or car whereas you can have games with detailed images of weapons or cars or whatever (so are using a products image which has been designed by someone and therefore probably has intellectual property associated with it), so would EA only have something that looked a bit like, say an MP5 but call it an XS1 or something?
Maybe it will end up a bit like the Chinese car market where you just have things that look really similar to a Rolls Royce but also aren't...

Also just to join in the good ol' guns debate, I don't see a problem with owning a firearm if you are correctly licensed etc, but surely nobody needs a .50cal sniper rifle for hunting!? I mean, do you want to kill your target or blow it's bloody head off! The big old bang it makes might scare off everything else living in the vicinity so you better not miss!
I suppose it will be useful for when the aliens invade! Or those damn reds!
toolio20 8th May 2013, 23:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Yes, I have some experience in the subject matter, that kinda comes in handy when arguing about something, wouldn't you agree? For one thing I know what the legal definitions are for various weapon types in the US. "Assault weapon" has no real meaning, it's just a media buzz word that describes a scary military-looking firearm regardless of its function.
Dude, not sure if you're also European or not but conventional wisdom suggests it's never a productive use of time arguing with a European about gun issues - cue Piers Morgan as a prime example - and it never will be. Americans will never give two $#!]$ about soccer, and Britons will never understand the importance of a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to own firearms. Plus, engaging someone who is clearly, painfully ignorant of the subject matter isn't a discussion but rather a black hole, so no use trying to make a rational argument - it's all wasted effort.

OT: Parafilm, I think you're a bit off on your point about books - just because an author doesn't provide a VISUAL representation of, say, a Colt Python, he's still mentioning a specific, name-brand product and manufacturer in the course of telling a story, in almost exactly the same way a video game would (visual rendering and interactivity inherent in the medium being the differentiators). So as much as I loathe EA, they do kinda have a valid point. Then again, there's the question of legal precedent, which I guess the Bell/EA lawsuit will help determine. Overall it's an interesting legal question, and a nice break from all the depressing patent-trolling muck we see in tech news.
toolio20 8th May 2013, 23:34 Quote
1
Horizon 9th May 2013, 00:03 Quote
Personally, this move makes EA look like a bigger dickhead than it is. At the end of the day, consumers are still going to hate them. For gun makers, it will be business as usual. And the gun control, topic will always be a hot topic of debate. It's been shown that overall all gun related crime is in decline year after year but of course there always that heinous act that just keeps stoking the proverbial fire.
longweight 9th May 2013, 00:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolio20
Dude, not sure if you're also European or not but conventional wisdom suggests it's never a productive use of time arguing with a European about gun issues - cue Piers Morgan as a prime example - and it never will be. Americans will never give two $#!]$ about soccer, and Britons will never understand the importance of a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to own firearms. Plus, engaging someone who is clearly, painfully ignorant of the subject matter isn't a discussion but rather a black hole, so no use trying to make a rational argument - it's all wasted effort.

Amazing, you must have lots of freedom points.
theshadow2001 9th May 2013, 00:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
ON TOPIC POST: I think EA has a point about the use of the name in a fictional setting, books being the precedent for their argument. I can't believe they have actually been paying manufactures license fees. Quite the contrary, I would think it should be the manufacturers paying EA for product placement (think Coke, Doritos, <insert brand name here> in movies).

I think both points of view are sort of right. You have product placement and you have the product being used as a sales point for the game. There is the fiction precedent, there is the product placement precedent and there is paying to use likeness precedent. The only way to resolve this is to show who benefits more from the arrangement, the game company or the gun company.

On a personal note I don't care if real gun likenesses are used or something sort of similar is used instead as I know nothing about real guns so I wouldn't notice one way or the other.
The_Crapman 9th May 2013, 01:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolio20
Americans will never give two $#!]$ about soccer, and Britons will never understand the importance of a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to own firearms.
Please do explain why it is important that you have the "RIGHT" to own a firearm? Concentrate there on the imortance bit without just splerging out the constitution. People place far to much importance on things that were written on paper by some guys hundreds of years ago, which have no foresight into the world we live in today. And thats not just aimed at americans, but mostly so.

I'm not anti-guns, i quite like guns. I own a few bb guns and would probably own a gun if i lived in a country that allowed me to do so. I'm just anti-phycologically-disturbed-people-that-own-guns.

Also piers morgan is not english, or european, or even human. He's just a c**t.
John_T 9th May 2013, 02:12 Quote
OFF TOPIC:
Quote:
Originally Posted by toolio20

Dude, not sure if you're also European or not but conventional wisdom suggests it's never a productive use of time arguing with a European about gun issues - cue Piers Morgan as a prime example - and it never will be. Americans will never give two $#!]$ about soccer, and Britons will never understand the importance of a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to own firearms.

Wrong on both counts there I reckon: There are plenty of Europeans (and Brits) who would like very much to have the right to own guns - and, (whether you think it's for girls or not) 'soccer' is definitely growing on that side of the pond. Seattle Sounders regularly get a gate of over 38,000 at their games. That may not be record-breaking, but it's a very respectable number by anyone's standards.

Also, to add to the 'pro' and 'anti' gun camps you should probably also add a third - the camp I personally sit in, (and I suspect a majority over here do): The 'I couldn't give a flying **** about American gun ownership one way or the other' camp. I don't have to live there, so if you ban all guns, knives, spoons and dangerously sharpened mangoes - or make it compulsory for all people over the age of 8 to walk around with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder and a Magnum .357 in their back pocket, honestly, I don't care. I really don't. I don't know a lot of people who do.

Many people this side of the Atlantic may find the passionate American desire to keep fully automatic machine guns and sniper rifles in their bedrooms slightly strange and bewildering - but that's not the really same thing as having a fixed opinion on it...
yougotkicked 9th May 2013, 02:37 Quote
with regards to the gun debate: one of the most common arguments against gun control in the US is that any restriction on what type of gun you can own could be used as a legal stepping stone to make it difficult to own any type of gun.

I personally don't think that argument holds much water, the government isn't some enemy constantly looking for ways to disarm you. That being said, I don't see a good argument for completely banning any type of weapon, I see an argument for stricter controls on the process of purchasing guns. In many states it is easy for someone with a criminal record and documented mental illness to legally purchase a gun, and there is little to no control over how guns are stored.

P.S. before you start generalizing about Americans being mindless gun-lovers, read up on political lobbying in America. Many of these laws and policies are not something the public voted on, they are put in place because private companies bribed politicians into passing them.
John_T 9th May 2013, 02:40 Quote
ON TOPIC
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
ON TOPIC POST: I think EA has a point about the use of the name in a fictional setting, books being the precedent for their argument. I can't believe they have actually been paying manufactures license fees. Quite the contrary, I would think it should be the manufacturers paying EA for product placement (think Coke, Doritos, <insert brand name here> in movies).

Agree with that entirely.

For me, I believe the idea of 'image rights' has got completely out of hand to the point of absurdity. The weapons manufacturers make weapons, the games makers make games. They are non-competing industries. One game bought does not equate to one weapon sale lost, and one weapon bought does not equate to one game sale lost. Where is the injury to their business to warrant financial restitution?

For gun makers to jealously guard their names and images in relation to other gun makers is completely understandable - for anyone else it's just daft. It's almost like they're trying to deny their existence, unless you're willing to pay to witness to it.

Once you make an object and release it into the world, the world has knowledge of it and can talk about it as it sees fit. It may not have the right to try and compete with the original maker by reproducing and selling a replica, (ie make a competing gun with the same look and name) but the world shouldn't have to pay just to mention the object's existence - that's mad!

Think about where that would ultimately lead: Virtually every single thing you see when you leave your front door was designed by someone, if everyone took to the law courts every time their car/bike/bus/building/shirt/trousers/pavement/everything was filmed/written about/reproduced in video format, our law courts and economies would melt.

EA were right to tell them to poke it, and the gun companies should frankly be thankful for all the free advertising.
Marvin-HHGTTG 9th May 2013, 03:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
Snip

Entirely agree.
fdbh96 9th May 2013, 08:32 Quote
I think EA is perfectly within their rights here. I still hate them as a company. But why should you pay someone to advertise their gun in a game?

Also, to go with the off topic theme, being able to buy guns so easily is just daft. And you can't argue the facts either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Gareth Halfacree 9th May 2013, 08:39 Quote
Update: according to Ars Technica, EA has actually never paid to licence gun trademarks (images, brands, designs or names) in its games - which is certainly not how I understood it. I'm waiting on a response to an email, to see if I can clarify the company's relationship with arms manufacturers - 'cos it certainly seems like there's confusion here.

My questions to EA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
1) Has EA ever paid arms manufacturers for the right to use brand names, trademarks or weapon licences in any of its games?
2) If not, has EA ever been asked to pay such licences (the case of Bell Helicopter notwithstanding)?
3) Does EA have a relationship with any arms manufacturer or military equipment company that results in money flowing from EA to the manufacturer, and if so what does the relationship entail?
4) Does EA have a relationship with any arms manufacturer or military equipment company that results in money flowing from the manufacturer to EA, and if so what does the relationship entail?
5) Does EA benefit from a partnership with arms manufacturers when creating its first-person shooter titles, and if so what benefit does it gain - i.e. field trips, equipment hire, technical support?
In retrospect I should have asked whether arms manufacturers have any creative control over the games (i.e. "you can't have our weapons jamming, that makes us look bad") but we'll see if they answer the above before pelting 'em with more questions.
liratheal 9th May 2013, 10:32 Quote
I think EA has a point, and I hope it sets a precedent.

I'm sick to the back teeth of using an M107/M82A1 and having it be called "Monkey**** God Slayer" or some bullshit.

I want my Colt 1911, my Barrett M82A1, and my Barrett M468 damnit - And everyone knows what they are anyway!

To the gun control argument folks.. Now is neither the time or the place. I believe that "Serious" has a gun control argument every other month at least.
Harlequin 9th May 2013, 10:50 Quote
@John_T

for you:

https://bananenplanet.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/10-things-most-americans-dont-know-about-america/
Quote:
1. Few People Are Impressed By Us

Unless you’re speaking with a real estate agent or a prostitute, chances are they’re not going to be excited that you’re American. It’s not some badge of honor we get to parade around. Yes, we had Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison, but unless you actually are Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison (which is unlikely) then most people around the world are simply not going to care. There are exceptions of course. And those exceptions are called English and Australian people. Whoopdie-****ing-doo.

As Americans, we’re brought up our entire lives being taught that we’re the best, we did everything first and that the rest of the world follows our lead. Not only is this not true, but people get irritated when you bring it to their country with you. So don’t.
John_T 10th May 2013, 01:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
...

That was pretty good. Some of his points were overly harsh and a bit of self-flagellation, but a few of them were bang on the money - made me laugh... :)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums