[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]
There's a big difference between branding and "funding"
Funding means that the game directly gives money to weapon manufactuers. That is not what is going on here at all.
This isn't any different than seeing a bilboard for mcdonalds by the road, having oreos show up in a movie somewhere, etc. It's nothing more than branding to keep your brand awareness high.
That one out of 500,000 kids that actually buys a FAMAS replica isn't going to "fund" weapons manufactuers at all, its going to keep them relevant in the eyes of public at most so people don't forget such companies exist - thats why its there. Nobody would have gave a shit about twinkies going under if people didn't have wide awareness of the brand. Especially since by and large weapons manufactures do NOT get a good chunk of their buisness from the public - its mostly contract work for governments or private firms.
The only weapons manufacturers that focus on the consumer market are people like Remington and other manufacturers of hunting-related firearms and shotguns. Which by the way, don't have any sort of presence in video games out side of hunting sims.
Maybe it's just you?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;39434418][img]http://i.imgur.com/MQ4a4pf.jpg[/img]
And on the other end of the spectrum.[/QUOTE]
i fancy a coke now
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39434400]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[/QUOTE]
'I want to protect myself and my stuff' is a little different from 'don't fuck with me because I am the biggest ape in the jungle'. Self-defense and machismo aren't the same, even if some people demonstrate a bit of both.
I don't own any firearms, but if I did it would be because target shooting is fun or because I want protection, not because I feel a need to beat my chest and demonstrate how cool and dangerous I am when carrying a hunk of metal mashed together in Switzerland. You can try to tell me that [i]subconsciously[/i] it's really some Freudian display but that's armchair psychology at its worst.
hahaha this has been obvious as fuck
it's pretty hard not to notice the massive REMINGTON on the side of rifles in MW3?
[QUOTE=catbarf;39437262]'I want to protect myself and my stuff' is a little different from 'don't fuck with me because I am the biggest ape in the jungle'. Self-defense and machismo aren't the same, even if some people demonstrate a bit of both.
I don't own any firearms, but if I did it would be because target shooting is fun or because I want protection, not because I feel a need to beat my chest and demonstrate how cool and dangerous I am when carrying a hunk of metal mashed together in Switzerland. You can try to tell me that [i]subconsciously[/i] it's really some Freudian display but that's armchair psychology at its worst.[/QUOTE]
you legitimately don't think that people purchase firearms out of a desire for power? it's not freudian or armchair psych, it's really basic power psychology.
[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]
Nowadays manufacturers will sue people for using a likeness of their product, so you have to license it anyway. Might as well use the name at that point.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39437388]you legitimately don't think that people purchase firearms out of a desire for power? it's not freudian or armchair psych, it's really basic power psychology.[/QUOTE]
it's the same reason people get trucks or fast sports cars. I don't think people are going to consciously accept that they own guns because of some machismo bullshit. maybe the debate will finally move forward when people like you stop putting forth irrelevant statements about the type of people who own guns??
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39437439]it's the same reason people get trucks or fast sports cars. I don't think people are going to consciously accept that they own guns because of some machismo bullshit. maybe the debate will finally move forward when people like you stop putting forth irrelevant statements about the type of people who own guns??[/QUOTE]
"people like me"
you mean gun owners?
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
and ps my strong suggestion is not to try to bring in sports cars into play because that basically supports my entire argument
Boy, I really did like that rocket launcher, I'm going to pop to the shops and pick one upright away!
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39437650]"people like me"
you mean gun owners?
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
and ps my strong suggestion is not to try to bring in sports cars into play because that basically supports my entire argument[/QUOTE]
your entire argument is dumb because it doesn't matter if gun owners are machismo or not. it has literally nothing to do with anything. sure it might be true but what does it even affect??
soon we'll have terrorists going after namco for directly funding airstrikes against them through aircraft manufacturer license fees
what a joke. next scapegoat please
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39437388]you legitimately don't think that people purchase firearms out of a desire for power? it's not freudian or armchair psych, it's really basic power psychology.[/QUOTE]
'Power to protect oneself' and 'power to show off' are completely different. You're equating a functional, practical purpose with a social one, like saying that people buy cars not to get places but to show off. That might be true for some cars and some people, but it's not true for all of them. Some people buy cars because they need to get from A to B. Some people buy cars to show off. Some people buy cars for historical or collection value. Some people buy cars to compete or for recreation.
Some people buy guns because they need to protect themselves. Some people buy guns to show off. Some people buy guns for historical or collection value. Some people buy guns to compete or for recreation.
You are speculating as to the 'true' motives of literally everyone who owns a firearm, and dismissing professed alternatives as self-denial. If that isn't 'armchair psych', I don't know what is.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39437780]next scapegoat please[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the article? This isn't about scapegoating.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39437979]like saying that people buy cars not to get places but to show off. That might be true for some cars and some people, but it's not true for all of them. Some people buy cars because they need to get from A to B. Some people buy cars to show off. Some people buy cars for historical or collection value. Some people buy cars to compete or for recreation.[/QUOTE]
You picked arguable the most unsupported comparison you could have.
The car industry wank each other off nightly over the thought on how they successfully turned the 'car' into this great metaphysical item of desire.
I feel that gamers who are naturally inclined to enjoy firearms and "manly" stuff would have bought these things regardless of it was sponsored a video game or not, because our culture glamorizes violence and machismo is an appealing thing for some men. That's not a bad thing in some circumstances, but does have an effect on our culture that sometimes comes out in negative ways when ignorance or tempers get high.
I feel that it's not a problem if people own guns or not, it's that they use them responsibly. A guy who goes out and buys a Smith & Wesson handgun because he likes using them in Battlefield isn't a bad thing. Kids shouldn't have guns, period. Maybe let them use them in a safe firing range with parental supervision, but a BB gun in the backyard is a no-no, and a pistol that's not locked up that a kid could use is bad parenting, since kids aren't fully developed enough to understand the implications of gun usage and ownership, and how much it can change or wreck a life (theirs or another) upon firing. Safe gun usage and knowledge is important, and parents who own guns should take great steps to ensure their children don't view guns in a way that gang culture, action movies or video games portray them as a kickass problem solver but as a last resort self-defense weapon and, when older, can use them for recreational uses at firing ranges.
Also, I understand that developers want their game to be as realistic as possible, so that's why they license real guns for their games. Of note here is that [b]these games aren't meant for kids[/b]. Little 12-year-old Bobby shouldn't be playing Call of Duty, so the point of these guns being portrayed in a positive light to kids is moot because they shouldn't even be seeing them and parenting should have restricted them from it. These inclusions of real life guns are meant to entertain enthusiasts of age and, yes, also work as product placement, but that's not a bad thing.
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;39438029]
I feel that it's not a problem if people own guns or not, it's that they use them responsibly. A guy who goes out and buys a Smith & Wesson handgun because he likes using them in Battlefield isn't a bad thing. Kids shouldn't have guns, period. Maybe let them use them in a safe firing range with parental supervision, but a BB gun in the backyard is a no-no, and a pistol that's not locked up that a kid could use is bad parenting, since kids aren't fully developed enough to understand the implications of gun usage and ownership, and how much it can change or wreck a life (theirs or another) upon firing. Safe gun usage and knowledge is important, and parents who own guns should take great steps to ensure their children don't view guns in a way that gang culture, action movies or video games portray them as a kickass problem solver but as a last resort self-defense weapon and, when older, can use them for recreational uses at firing ranges.
Also, I understand that developers want their game to be as realistic as possible, so that's why they license real guns for their games. Of note here is that [b]these games aren't meant for kids[/b]. Little 12-year-old Bobby shouldn't be playing Call of Duty, so the point of these guns being portrayed in a positive light to kids is moot because they shouldn't even be seeing them and parenting should have restricted them from it. These inclusions of real life guns are meant to entertain enthusiasts of age and, yes, also work as product placement, but that's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree, however the developers often don't want the game to be as realistic as possible.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39438019]You picked arguable the most unsupported comparison you could have.
The car industry wank each other off nightly over the thought on how they successfully turned the 'car' into this great metaphysical item of desire.[/QUOTE]
That is specifically why I chose cars. Use your brain for a second. Some people buy cars so they can show off, or as you say, get the great metaphysical item of desire.
Does that mean [I]all[/I] people buy cars for that express purpose? Do no people buy cars just to get where they need to go? Is anyone who says they just use a cheap car so they can drive to work somehow in denial?
Of course not. The idea that people only buy cars to buy into the Great American Dream and show off their affluence is stupid. The idea that people only buy guns to show off or feel powerful is equally stupid.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39438125]Of course not. The idea that people only buy cars to buy into the Great American Dream and show off their affluence is stupid. The idea that people only buy guns to show off or feel powerful is equally stupid.[/QUOTE]
The idea that you can be equally - totally unaffected by it is also stupid.
I feel like this should be common knowledge for anyone who understands how licensing, trademarks, advertising, and product placement work. Game companies are willingly paying fees to include the product names of firearms in their games to make them more realistic, the firearms companies aren't telling them to so they can brainwash children, they also pay for an ungodly amount of other real world trademarks. Big deal, I don't see any massive articles about Forza or Need for Speed funding the auto industry. People see something cool in the media, they might want it. How is this news worthy? Other than "guns r bad, don't gib money."
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;39439242]I feel like this should be common knowledge for anyone who understands how licensing, trademarks, advertising, and product placement work. Game companies are willingly paying fees to include the product names of firearms in their games to make them more realistic, the firearms companies aren't telling them to so they can brainwash children, they also pay for an ungodly amount of other real world trademarks. Big deal, I don't see any massive articles about Forza or Need for Speed funding the auto industry. People see something cool in the media, they might want it. How is this news worthy? Other than "guns r bad, don't gib money."[/QUOTE]
the fact that they want something because it's very good at killing people in a game is a bit different than liking a car because it's fast in a game.
That's solid logic there, when I want to know the realistic qualities of a firearm I go to Call of Duty. And I'm glad you're qualified to know that every single person who has ever wanted a firearm because of a video game hasn't wanted it because it seemed like an interesting weapon or it looked cool, but because they were a mass murderer. We should probably ban those scary video games too.
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;39439304]That's solid logic there, when I want to know the realistic qualities of a firearm I go to Call of Duty. [B]And I'm glad you're qualified to know that every single person who has ever wanted a firearm because of a video game hasn't wanted it because it seemed like an interesting weapon or it looked cool, but because they were a mass murderer. [/B]We should probably ban those scary video games too.[/QUOTE]
strawman further?
I bet most people buy the civilian versions of the SCAR because it's an excellent rifle that fires .308/7.62x51 NATO, with modern features not found on the FAL not because they saw it in MW2.
that and read the damn article, the kid clearly states he became more interested in weapons because they were good in CoD
Considering you actually said "the fact that they want something because it's very good at killing people in a game," implying the purchase was made so they could be just as good at killing people. It's not a strawman, your argument was actually that ridiculous, and you just directly contradicted yourself with your latest argument. And one child doesn't accurately represent enough of a demographic to make that an applicable reason.
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;39439362]Considering you actually said "the fact that they want something because it's very good at killing people in a game," implying the purchase was made so they could be just as good at killing people. It's not a strawman, your argument was actually that ridiculous, and you just directly contradicted yourself with your latest argument. And one child doesn't accurately represent enough of a demographic to make that an applicable reason.[/QUOTE]
no.
People think a gun in a game is cool because it's good at killing people in the game. People want said gun because they think it's cool.
This in itself doesn't imply that they want to be just as good at killing people, IRL, because killing people in game isn't the same as killing people IRL.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39439411]no.
People think a gun in a game is cool because it's good at killing people in the game. People want said gun because they think it's cool.
This in itself doesn't imply that they want to be just as good at killing people, IRL, because killing people in game isn't the same as killing people IRL.[/QUOTE]
So you countered my argument about someone wanting something because it's cool, with a convoluted way to say the same thing. So in all reality, this is a ridiculous way to argue the same idea with different words lol.
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;39439428]So you countered my argument about someone wanting something because it's cool, with a convoluted way to say the same thing. So in all reality, this is a ridiculous way to argue the same idea with different words lol.[/QUOTE]
well I'm essentially saying that people wanting guns because of their efficiency in game is retarded no matter how you look at it, because games give a very limited picture of how a firearm operates
[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39437237]i fancy a coke now[/QUOTE]
Fuck you, pepsi is better. Until it gets a little flat, then coke is better.
I bought a crowbar because of Half-Life. Does that mean video games fund tool manufacturers?
A Christmas Story and the gunlust contained within is directly fueling cartels and America's enemies.
To shame Hollywood, to shame.
I'll admit, Red Orchestra 2 helped make me want a thing or two from the Russian Army.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
