Yes, that's the idea. The suit is not supposed to look to be in perfect condition either.
Just noticed that you used the "caterpillar" logo ,
BUT removed the registered trademark indicator ...
let's hope they aren't watching :raise:
incredible dude nice work
[QUOTE=robotwo;22256461]Just noticed that you used the "caterpillar" logo ,
BUT removed the registered trademark indicator ...
let's hope they aren't watching :raise:[/QUOTE]
When we design all the weapons and items, we'll release the game with slightly changed trademarks and no real weapon names. Afterwards we'll release "a mod" anonymously that returns all the real trademarks and weapon names. It's a great loophole in a law that doesn't serve anyone's interests. When the free advertisement of a trademark is illegal, you know there's something wrong with the law. When you can change 2 letters in the name of an obviously real-world influenced weapon and thus make it's use legal, there's something wrong with the law.
Remember when Counter Strike was first released as a mod for HL1? It had all the real names for weapons, with official ballistic stats and stuff. But because it was free, it was all legal to do. When Valve acquired the rights for CS and made it a commercial product, they had to change the weapon names. For what reason? The law. Why does the law prohibit the free advertisement of some company's products within another company's product? No reason whatsoever.
The system ... it's corrupted
[QUOTE=Plutonia;22258811]When we design all the weapons and items, we'll release the game with slightly changed trademarks and no real weapon names. Afterwards we'll release "a mod" anonymously that returns all the real trademarks and weapon names. It's a great loophole in a law that doesn't serve anyone's interests. When the free advertisement of a trademark is illegal, you know there's something wrong with the law. When you can change 2 letters in the name of an obviously real-world influenced weapon and thus make it's use legal, there's something wrong with the law.
Remember when Counter Strike was first released as a mod for HL1? It had all the real names for weapons, with official ballistic stats and stuff. But because it was free, it was all legal to do. When Valve acquired the rights for CS and made it a commercial product, they had to change the weapon names. [B]For what reason?[/B] The law. [B]Why does the law prohibit the free advertisement of some company's products within another company's product?[/B] No reason whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
To protect companies from being involuntarily associated with something they don't stand for.
[QUOTE=creefer;22295448]To protect companies from being involuntarily associated with something they don't stand for.[/QUOTE]
So whenever Polyphony Digital pays thousands and thousands of dollars to car manufacturers in license fees, it's just bribes to allow the game developers to include the cars in the most sophisticated commercial racing simulator available, and the car manufacturers don't stand for making their cars look good and drive fast?
And why is it that people can release free games and mods with all sorts of stuff with real brands, and companies are constantly being involuntarily associated with something they don't stand for?
And weapon manufacturers... those are the most hypocritical ones. They don't want to be associated with a violent videogame, a simulation on a computer, when their actual products are built for real killing.
No, it's just a preemptive barrier. Sometimes, like most laws, it fucks stuff up or doesn't do what it's supposed to. I don't really agree with it either.
I understand the fact that selling one's products with the brand of a competitor to increase profits is wrong because it fills the customer niches that the competitor would otherwise fill, in a way "stealing" profits from the competitor.
But in a situation like viewing a product brand in entertainment media, with no intentions of including the brands as advertisement for the product it's different. If I make a game that happens to have a Glock 18 pistol in it, it doesn't influence the sales of my game, nor the sales of Glock 18. They have nothing to do with one another. Unless I advertise the game like "MY game has real brands stuff in it!!1!" -that doesn't really influence Glock 18's sales either, but it is exploitation of a registered trademark to increase profits. It doesn't sound illegal, but it's pretty mean.
Anyways, I'm not going to be sorry about not writing "Caterpillar and the CAT® -logo are the property of Caterpillar®" on my game concepts. I have never put a watermark on any of my pics because they've never been commercial, and I know that I'm not exploiting a trademark to maximize profits. I'm using a trademark to maximize REALISM. In a world where people smoke Marlboro there are no RED Apple -cigarettes. In a world where millions kill millions with Kalashnikov AK-47s there are no Kovshnikala CV47s.
Good god man, it's flawless.
Sorry for bumping my own thread but I didn't want to make a new thread. Check the OP for new stuffs. :)
The second one had a very defined rear end :)
And I thought it was subtle. :)
[QUOTE=Plutonia;22303921]I understand the fact that selling one's products with the brand of a competitor to increase profits is wrong because it fills the customer niches that the competitor would otherwise fill, in a way "stealing" profits from the competitor.
But in a situation like viewing a product brand in entertainment media, with no intentions of including the brands as advertisement for the product it's different. If I make a game that happens to have a Glock 18 pistol in it, it doesn't influence the sales of my game, nor the sales of Glock 18. They have nothing to do with one another. Unless I advertise the game like "MY game has real brands stuff in it!!1!" -that doesn't really influence Glock 18's sales either, but it is exploitation of a registered trademark to increase profits. It doesn't sound illegal, but it's pretty mean.
Anyways, I'm not going to be sorry about not writing "Caterpillar and the CAT® -logo are the property of Caterpillar®" on my game concepts. I have never put a watermark on any of my pics because they've never been commercial, and I know that I'm not exploiting a trademark to maximize profits. I'm using a trademark to maximize REALISM. In a world where people smoke Marlboro there are no RED Apple -cigarettes. In a world where millions kill millions with Kalashnikov AK-47s there are no Kovshnikala CV47s.[/QUOTE]
Its more like with GTA, Ford or whatever car company don't want to be associated with the car thats best for running over prostitutes, so their car can't be put in the game without permission.
[QUOTE=Fergeh;22443700]Its more like with GTA, Ford or whatever car company don't want to be associated with the car thats best for running over prostitutes, so their car can't be put in the game without permission.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but when you think about it the law is still ridiculous. People wouldn't even notice correlations like that if there wasn't a law. If there wasn't a law you'd be shocked about someone running over prostitutes, not about someone running over prostitutes with a Ford. People can't really be that stupid. In fact I don't think they could be even if they tried. They try to look like they can though, and others try to look like they understand their concern.
And you know, Ford is associated with running over prostitutes whether it wants or doesn't want. It happens in real life, which in my opinion is far worse than it happening in a videogame.
Elizadeth's suit with the gravity simulation exoskeleton, equipment vest and the Шепот -rail pistol.
[IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/50f200valkyrie.png[/IMG]
Seriously, I came.
Nice butt on that one.
May I reccomend adding a holster on each leg for added badassness?
