[url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers[/url]
Highlights from the article (which is very long):
[quote] The American confectionery company Victoria Sweets claims to have invented the candy cigarette. A thin stick of chocolate, wrapped in edible paper and designed to impersonate a roll-up, it debuted in 1915 and soon became the accessory of choice for children keen to play grown-up. Hollywood star, GI Joe, team captain: the sweet gave kids the chance try out one of the vogue props of adulthood.
Within 20 years it was so popular that cigarette companies began to take notice. Leading brands such as Marlboro, Winston and Salem authorised their packaging designs for use on millions of candy cigarette boxes. One confectioner of the period touted the sweet's "tremendous advertising factor to coming-up cigaret smokers."
The marketing of imitation adult products to children in the hope they will blossom into customers of the genuine article is widespread. The video game presents further opportunities for manufacturers to target young people. Toyota and Nissan work with racing game developers to show off their vehicles as pristinely desirable. Nike and Adidas position their logo on virtual boots. Gibson licenses plastic versions of its guitars in the hope players will progress from the coloured buttons of the peripheral to the nickel-wound strings of a Les Paul.
And Barrett, creator of the M82, a shoulder-mounted, .50-caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle, hopes that the appearance of its weapon in a video game will, in time, turn young players into gun owners.[/quote]
[quote]"It is hard to qualify to what extent rifle sales have increased as a result of being in games," says Ralph Vaughn, the man who negotiates deals with game developers for Barrett. "But video games expose our brand to a young audience who are considered possible future owners."
The rifle was officially adopted by the military nine years later where it became known by its non-commercial model delineation, M107. "I was so pleased," says Barrett. "A company creates a product or service in the civilian market and maybe it will someday have an application for government or military use. But that's the sort of thing that could never happen." Indeed, the US government has brought the firearm designs of seven individuals into service. Barrett is the only one to create, manufacture, market and mass-produce his gun.
This wasn't the rifle's only commercial triumph; in 2006, after winning fame and notoriety on the battlefield, Barrett's firearm was to join a new type of force. "Yes, we've worked with companies to send our sniper rifles into video games," says Vaughn. "Which ones? Our licence agreement prohibits us from mentioning a company by name." However, he says, "You are welcome to check out the Call of Duty series."[/quote]
[quote]Today licensed weapons are commonplace in video games, but the deals between game makers and gun-manufacturer are shrouded. Not one of the publishers contacted for this article was willing to discuss the practice. (EA: "I'm afraid we can't progress this." Activision: "Not something we can assist with at present... My hands are tied." Codemasters: "We're focused on our racing titles these days." Crytek: "We can't help you with that request." Sega: "[This] doesn't sit comfortably." Sony: "I can't help with this I'm afraid.")
However, the gun makers are more forthcoming. "[It's] absolutely the same as with cars in games," says Barrett's Vaughn. "We must be paid a royalty fee - either a one-time payment or a percentage of sales, all negotiable. Typically, a licensee pays between 5 per cent to 10 per cent retail price for the agreement. But we could negotiate on that."[/quote]
[quote]Further evidence is provided by French company Cybergun, one of the most successful BB gun manufacturers in the world. It acts as an intermediary between gun and game makers, negotiating the licensing of weapons in games on behalf of brands including Uzi, Kalashnikov, Colt, FAMAS, FN Herstal, Sig Sauer, Mauser and Taurus.
Here's an example of the sort of master licence agreement held by Cybergun.
Anthony Toutain brokers these deals for Cybergun. He also hunts down game developers who use weapons without permission. The Call of Duty titles feature FN rifles, for example, and yet, Toutain alleges, Activision does not own the necessary paperwork. "They use the FN brand without licence," he says. "We plan to contact them for licensing. At the moment it's like a no-man's land out there."
The costs of the licences Cybergun sell vary. "It may be a one-off fee, a royalty or revenue share, or simply promotion and endorsement," says Toutain. "It totally depends on the product and how it fits our own product strategy. It will not be the same price for an independent studio that launches a free-to-play game and a blockbuster like Call of Duty or Battlefield that earn millions of dollars. But always our first objective for any gun is to increase [its] fame around the world."
[B]"We definitely see sales of particular [BB] guns increase when they are featured in popular video games, such as Call of Duty," he says. "For example, sales of the FAMAS [used by the French army] exploded in the US when Call of Duty decided to use it as one of the best weapons in their game.[/B]
"Before then children in America [didn't] want to buy the FAMAS airsoft gun, simply because they don't know this brand. But when they play every day with a new brand in a video game, finally they want to buy it in reality. [B]The sales increase can be enormously significant.[/B]"[/quote]
[quote]It's understandable that video game publishers are unwilling to discuss the question of gun licensing against this volatile backdrop. In 2012, EA created a website promoting the manufacturers of the guns, knives and combat gear depicted in the game Medal of Honor Warfighter. The move attracted widespread criticism. After decades of unsubstantiated claims that media affects behaviour, the industry is sensitive to implied links between real-world violence and game violence.
But today we know that a portion of every dollar spent on triple-A military-themed video games flows into the pockets of small arms manufacturers, either directly through licence payments, or indirectly through advertising. These beneficiaries include Barrett in the US and FN in France. They may include other controversial arms dealers, such as Israel Weapon Industries, creator of the TAR-21, which appears in Call of Duty. Such deals politicise video games in tangible yet hidden ways. Consumers have, for the past few years, unwittingly funded arms companies that often have their own military agendas.
The system raises complicated questions. No subject is taboo for a mature artistic medium and brand name weapons indisputably add verisimilitude. Their absence would be creatively damaging.[/quote]
[quote]"To harp on about gun manufacturers making money off these licences is inconsequential when it comes to the influence that games have on people's purchasing behaviors. There are plenty of games with realistic but not licensed guns that still glamourise the usage of that gun. I'm sure the revenue generated from a culture that glamourises violence in general in all forms of media, including games, out-earns the actual monetary gains from the licensing of the products directly."
Likewise, for this designer, the fact that gun companies use video games to market their products to young people isn't the primary issue. "This is what marketing does and this is a function of our current culture," he says. "This is a problem with how we make products appeal to people, including products that can lead to death.
"Gun companies marketing to young players is a symptom, not the problem. It's more systemically ingrained in our culture. I think to only worry about guns' effects on people is to ignore the real problems, because these are just far more difficult to solve. They involve more than just getting rid of the gun culture in America."
For Martin Hollis, who turned his back on developing violent video games following his departure from Rare in 1998, it's more straightforward. "My moral position is that you are partially complicit with violence as soon as you have a violent narrative," he says.
"The stories we tell and the games we play have an effect, otherwise people would not bother with the whole undertaking. Licensing gun names is a darker point on a spectrum that begins with the act of playing Cops and Robbers. But putting money in the palm of arms dealers can only help them make tools to kill." [/quote]
[quote]"We definitely see sales of particular [BB] guns increase when they are featured in popular video games, such as Call of Duty," he says. "For example, sales of the FAMAS [used by the French army] exploded in the US when Call of Duty decided to use it as one of the best weapons in their game.[/quote]
[img]http://oldcountrystrong.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ho-ho-ho.png[/img]
Yes, because money from airsoft guns goes into the gun market. You can't legally own most of the weapons in any of those games, and the ones you can (or there semi-automatic version) usually cost a bit more then what most folks are willing to spend to get a gun outside of an AR and AK.
A significant portion of the airsoft guns people buy aren't even licensed to begin with, so not a cent of their sales goes to firearm manufactures.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39434107]Yes, because money from airsoft guns goes into the gun market.[/QUOTE]
It does, did you even read the article?
Frankly I don't see how this is video game developers funding weapon manufacturers, it sounds like it's the other way around.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434139]Frankly I don't see how this is video game developers funding weapon manufacturers, it sounds like it's the other way around.[/QUOTE]
the cultural atmosphere surrounding computer games, especially first person shooters?
"hey this gun looks pretty cool, i think i'll get a physical, real-life version of it"
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39434148]the cultural atmosphere surrounding computer games, especially first person shooters?
"hey this gun looks pretty cool, i think i'll get a physical, real-life version of it"[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure most Call of Duty players have the funds or the licenses to buy an M82 or a Tar-21
Airsoft guns, sure, but as said many Airsoft guns aren't licensed anyways.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434139]Frankly I don't see how this is video game developers funding weapon manufacturers, it sounds like it's the other way around.[/QUOTE]
Developers pay for weapon licenses. I don't even know what "the other way around" could be (and if there is an equivalent of it) but it's definitely not what the article is talking about.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39434148]the cultural atmosphere surrounding computer games, especially first person shooters?
"hey this gun looks pretty cool, i think i'll get a physical, real-life version of it"[/QUOTE]
The same could be said about movies. There's plenty of people who got the airsoft replica of Robocop's Auto-9 automatic pistol. What's to stop them from getting their own actual weapon that resembles it?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39434161]Developers pay for weapon licenses. I don't even know what "the other way around" could be (and if there is an equivalent of it) but it's definitely not what the article is talking about.[/QUOTE]
The article states that some of it is just advertising and endorsement.
Sorry, I'm still confused about the concept that game developers are paying gun manufacturers to in order to advertise the guns for the gun manufacturer (??). Maybe I'm just a traditionalist but don't product companies usually pay the game developers for product placement?
oh god everyone on this forum sponsors the murder of innocent civilians in far away countries.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
get away from me you barbarians
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39434124]It does, did you even read the article?[/QUOTE]
Licencing fees do, but a majority of airsoft gun company skirt around this my naming their guns differently. Outside of cybergun and tokyo marui most companies make an AR, name it different, and throw it on the market.
The amount of actual money feeding producers of weapons is relatively small, since they're mostly done on a "buy a licence once" instead of paying royalties for each airsoft gun sold. If anything airsoft guns are more like a giant ad for gun companies. Sure you can say that they are funding the companies by increasing the weapons popularity, but then again about anything that features guns in it does that too.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434212]The article states that some of it is just advertising and endorsement.
Sorry, I'm still confused about the concept that game developers are paying gun manufacturers to in order to advertise the guns for the gun manufacturer (??). Maybe I'm just a traditionalist but don't product companies usually pay the game developers for product placement?[/QUOTE]
Nah you have to pay gun manufacturers sometimes, or at least [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AKA47]it seems that way.[/url]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434212]The article states that some of it is just advertising and endorsement.[/QUOTE]
"just"
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434212]Sorry, I'm still confused about the concept that game developers are paying gun manufacturers to in order to advertise the guns for the gun manufacturer (??). Maybe I'm just a traditionalist but don't product companies usually pay the game developers for product placement?[/QUOTE]
"We [I](the gun manufacturers)[/I] 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."
so if a game dev decides it wants to feature realistic weapon names, it has to pay the license for it to the gun manufacturer.
counter-strike doesn't do this for example, where the Desert Eagle was renamed the Night Hawk and some other stuff like that
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434212]Sorry, I'm still confused about the concept that game developers are paying gun manufacturers to in order to advertise the guns for the gun manufacturer (??). Maybe I'm just a traditionalist but don't product companies usually pay the game developers for product placement?[/QUOTE]
they technically have to pay a license to use the real name of the gun at least, since normally a trademarked name
i think licensing was one of the reasons that counter-strike had fake names for its weapons
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
welp, beaten by seconds
Great, now I have to format my computer, burn the discs for my games, and smash my consoles. Damned lousy war-profiteering, child-murdering video games. But I won't be part of it!
this makes sense and it's very interesting considering fp's gun owning population (of which i am one)
they say that videogames don't make them prone to violent tendencies yet they desire to maintain weapons and shoot them
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39434285]they say that videogames don't make them prone to violent tendencies yet they desire to maintain weapons and shoot them[/QUOTE]
i don't think that's really the right way to put it, since one does not automatically imply the other
people can be into archery without wanting to shoot anything living
If anything it sounds like gun manufacturers are just mercilessly gouging game designers. How dumb does a game publisher have to be to pay somebody... to advertise for said somebody?
If everybody in Battlefield 3 was carrying a coke bottle instead of an M16, Coca-Cola would literally be jizzing a fountain of money for EA. It blows my mind that somebody would pay for a license to use the guns name, it's such a comically bad deal for the game designer I just can't find it sinister.
Takes me back to the days of GoldenEye 64. I still mistakenly refer to the vz.61 as "The Klobb" sometimes, seems like a good workaround.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434318]If everybody in Battlefield 3 was carrying a coke bottle instead of an M16, Coca-Cola would literally be jizzing a fountain of money for EA.[/QUOTE]
This sentence is golden.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434318]If anything it sounds like gun manufacturers are just mercilessly gouging game designers. How dumb does a game publisher have to be to pay somebody... to advertise for said somebody?[/QUOTE]
to be fair, it's not the gun manufacturers that are asking for the product placement, it's the game designers who want to use it, and want it enough to pay for it
if they didn't pay a license fee they could easily get sued for a buttload of money
typical gamers are probably not quite the same demographic to whom a weapon manufacturing company would normally advertise, so for them it probably works out better economically to get game devs to pay for licensing than to just let it be and hope enough gamers buy more guns
likewise, if ea [I]really[/I] wanted to put coca-cola bottles into bf3 and did so without paying for licensing, coca-cola would sue them in the ~butte~ and rightfully so, since their trademark is used without their permission, and without their control of how it is used
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
this whole thing applies to way more than guns in video games as well
larger companies typically prefer to be in control of where and how their trademarks are used (and have more resources to achieve this), so they'll probably do something in a case like this even if they are getting free advertising
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39434306]i don't think that's really the right way to put it, since one does not automatically imply the other
people can be into archery without wanting to shoot anything living[/QUOTE]
of course it isn't conscious, but all of these issues have extreme undertones of masculinity which heavily encourages the use of violence
when i was a kid i did archery for a couple years because i wanted to be little billy badass, and for most people that doesn't change when they grow older, especially with guns. they may claim that they target shoot, but the core element to firing weapons and exhibiting proficiency with weapons is that it demonstrates that you are an effective combatant. targets are almost always 12-18 inches across (aka, roughly the width of a human torso) and most of the discourse surrounding the use of weapons is that they're useful for self defense from criminals or from the state.
despite what people continue to try to say the core element to desire to fire a firearm is to have a demonstrable show of violent power, no matter how innocent it may be in their conscious mind. and speaking really frankly and honestly, I think that if people would simply [I]accept[/I] that about themselves and not be ashamed about it, the debate might actually [B]move forward.[/B]
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
most people know deep down the reason they want a gun is to pop some jackass that tries to take their shit, they just don't say it because they know they'll catch flak for it
i wanted to get a revolver a couple of years back but decided against it
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434318]If anything it sounds like gun manufacturers are just mercilessly gouging game designers. How dumb does a game publisher have to be to pay somebody... to advertise for said somebody?
If everybody in Battlefield 3 was carrying a coke bottle instead of an M16, Coca-Cola would literally be jizzing a fountain of money for EA. It blows my mind that somebody would pay for a license to use the guns name, it's such a comically bad deal for the game designer I just can't find it sinister.
Takes me back to the days of GoldenEye 64. I still mistakenly refer to the vz.61 as "The Klobb" sometimes, seems like a good workaround.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MQ4a4pf.jpg[/img]
And on the other end of the spectrum.
[quote]to be fair, it's not the gun manufacturers that are asking for the product placement, it's the game designers who want to use it, and want it enough to pay for it
if they didn't pay a license fee they could easily get sued for a buttload of money[/quote]
Good point, however this still seems like stupidity on part of game designers. I'm still blown away that they'd pay good money (or enough money to qualify as "funding weapon manufacturers") just to use the name.
There's plenty of games that just use real guns and give them fake names, at the end of the day nobody really cares and they don't have to pay licensing fees.
Shit, my family owned half the guns in MW3 before the game even came out
i guess that's really dictated by the audience, and by what exactly they (the game devs) are trying to achieve with the game
both cod and battlefield are marketed as (somewhat) realistic simulators of war, and i guess the devs felt that giving guns fake names would take away from the realism too much
which is pretty stupid considering that, for example in cod, when you play every round of demolition you are wasting about a hundred lives of soldiers, pointlessly trying to blow up a [I]god damn box[/I]
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
also basically the rest of what happens in both these games
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39434213][IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=171824&dateline=1231500341[/IMG]
oh god everyone on this forum sponsors the murder of innocent civilians in far away countries.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
get away from me you barbarians[/QUOTE]
Spoken like a true Prime!
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39434421]Good point, however this still seems like stupidity on part of game designers. I'm still blown away that they'd pay good money (or enough money to qualify as "funding weapon manufacturers") just to use the name. There's plenty of games that just use real guns and give them fake names, at the end of the day nobody really cares and they don't have to pay licensing fees.[/QUOTE] if ur game claims to be at least semi-realistic, then having real weapon names helps add legitimacy to the claim.
I don't see how this is news, private companies making money off royalties isn't really a big deal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
