EA Drops Gun Makers, Not Their Guns

agentdomo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
289
I just hope we don't have to use a Grock 18 and Slith and Nesson 7.5" revolvers.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,554
Who the fuck is running EA, and are they secretly selling EA stock and buying something else? Why are they trying to run the company into the ground. I see lawsuits... Wow...
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
why would I care what brand a gun in a game is? i'm just interested in its performance.
For the same reason a car enthusiast likes to see accurately depicted real world iconic cars, rather than just some unbranded generic car-like shaped vehicle.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Didnt Bf3 do this already? A lot of the guns didnt have their real names.

I checked, it was just the H&K copyrights.

I doubt there will be lawsuits, the names are the trademarks. People have been using the likeness for years and just changing names. Same thing that allowed Airsoft guns to use the shape but not the physical trademarks.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
They can use military designations, but companies can also protect the look of their designs with trademark laws.

EA is already being sued by Bell Helicopter.

Glock has enforced their trademark against other companies that have made replicas that look too much like Glocks.

No they can't. They can't only protect their trademarks as in names, but if EA use the designations they don't have to licence anything. if it's called a Beretta 92 they can complain, if it's an M9 they can't, same thing with the helicopter, a UH-1 is fine, a Bell 205 isn't.
 

Altanar

n00b
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
34
The sole reason they did this was because there were actually a large and growing group of people starting to think that buying games that give funds to gun manufacturers via licensing fees is immoral. The result of the licensing fees is that gamers were giving money to gun manufacturers who in turn gave that money to the NRA which used those funds to block things like background check legislation. Not to mention that the NRA has made several press releases stating that the government should regulate video games instead of guns.

So essentially video gamers via gun licensing fees were paying the NRA to tell lobby the government against video games.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,865
Okay, so "BFG, Portal Gun, etc" have been "done to death" but not normal "real-world" weapons?

:confused: :rolleyes:

I'd love to see some more unique weapons.

Still lots of properties that have not caught on by mainstream games yet, such as 3D scopes, collision, ect. Plus, they're fun to use.

They may have been used multiple times, but the argument that a weapon bigger than the person holding it or one the shoots short range green goo is "unique" is being contradictory because everything has been done before, multiple times.

Portal gun doesn't count as that isn't a weapon. ;) Even the gravity gun has been emulated in a few games.
 

deadrody

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
473
Isn't stuff the US army uses not needing of any license or something like that? They use the army designations and stuff instead of company ones. So as they don't have to pay them any money, there's no reason to.

I have a feeling that maybe since the US Army pays a boatload of money for the REAL weapons, that the companies they do business with would let it slide if they used the virtual ones without a license, or give them the license for free.

Just a thought
 

deadrody

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
473
The sole reason they did this was because there were actually a large and growing group of people starting to think that buying games that give funds to gun manufacturers via licensing fees is immoral.

A growing group, eh ? You and who else... ?

I hate to break it to you, gun manufacturers do not need the extra cash from game licensing. There are more than enough people trying to buy the real thing to keep them in business for decades to come.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,865
The sole reason they did this was because there were actually a large and growing group of people starting to think that buying games that give funds to gun manufacturers via licensing fees is immoral. The result of the licensing fees is that gamers were giving money to gun manufacturers who in turn gave that money to the NRA which used those funds to block things like background check legislation. Not to mention that the NRA has made several press releases stating that the government should regulate video games instead of guns.

So essentially video gamers via gun licensing fees were paying the NRA to tell lobby the government against video games.

Yet turn around and buy games promoting illegal and extremely dangerous street racing, funding car companies or games which promote murder and gang culture. :rolleyes:

Regardless, if the manufactures make profits it does not necessarily go to the NRA. There is a multitude of areas the extra revenue can go but why does it matter?
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
I have a feeling that maybe since the US Army pays a boatload of money for the REAL weapons, that the companies they do business with would let it slide if they used the virtual ones without a license, or give them the license for free.

Just a thought

It might also be so they can mass produce them (during wartime) without getting permission?
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
Yet turn around and buy games promoting illegal and extremely dangerous street racing, funding car companies or games which promote murder and gang culture. :rolleyes:
lolwut? Saying games promote street racing is the same as saying games promote violence. If you don't believe games promote violence but still don't agree with pro-gun groups, you may not want to buy a game that directly supports gun groups. You could make a parallel with car companies, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,865
lolwut? Saying games promote street racing is the same as saying games promote violence. If you don't believe games promote violence but still don't agree with pro-gun groups, you may not want to buy a game that directly supports gun groups. You could make a parallel with car companies, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.

I don't, which is my point. People who refuse to buy games because they feature firearms due to "moral reasons" are hypocrites if they buy games which feature killing and doing illegal things. Games don't increase violence (or hardly at all), and neither do firearms.

Regardless, luckily many firearms can get around the branding issue if they have military designations. The Colt/whatever logo will be absent from the side, but that is not much of a big deal. Some companies, like HK, are extremely difficult to get a license for if not impossible at the moment. This is why the HK 416 is dubbed "M416" or HK45 as "M45" in most games. So it will change little from them. Others, such as Barrett, are much more friendly and would probably drop licensing fees altogether if they could get products featured.

Beretta is (or was) rather friendly and even sent firearms to the dev teams of GRAW to help with development.
 

melteye

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2000
Messages
1,851
A growing group, eh ? You and who else... ?

I hate to break it to you, gun manufacturers do not need the extra cash from game licensing. There are more than enough people trying to buy the real thing to keep them in business for decades to come.

I think his point was that EA is distancing themselves (by doing this and getting media attention) from the perception he mentioned...
 

BBA

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
5,382
Hmmm...I guess every Hollywood movie that uses a gun would have to pay royalties to the gun maker as well.

This is pure stupidity, who really cares if a particular gun company gets a royalty? Heck, if anything, it promotes sales of the brand just by being there already. No one is losing money on this.
 

HardUp4HardWare

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
4,274
EA has to do something to keep the Homophobes interested in the games they ruin.

The whole "bag of dicks" thing just has to stop...
 

Weenis

I said WEENIS, not...
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
4,807
I loathe EA, but this is stupid bullshit.

A lot of military firearms are manufactured by more than one company, especially if you look at given history over time. Hell a good deal of them aren't even all made by one company.

This is just stupid.. in movies companies have to pay not to cover up the names, but in video games they have to pay to show them?

Fuck off with that..
 

GaryJohnson

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,053
Regardless, luckily many firearms can get around the branding issue if they have military designations. The Colt/whatever logo will be absent from the side, but that is not much of a big deal. Some companies, like HK, are extremely difficult to get a license for if not impossible at the moment. This is why the HK 416 is dubbed "M416" or HK45 as "M45" in most games. So it will change little from them. Others, such as Barrett, are much more friendly and would probably drop licensing fees altogether if they could get products featured.

EA is asserting in the article that they can use the actual branded names of things because fake things in media don't infringe on real things trademarks. This has implications way beyond just guns.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Yep. Halo 2 was one of my favorite shooters, didn't have a single branded gun in it.
The Railgun in Q3A or the Shock Rifle in UT are more memorable than a M16.

It's hard to say there's a balancing issue with guns that were made up out of thin air.
But when devs try to go the "real" route, the complains of those guns not being real and unbalanced goes on and on (see BF3 thread).

Give me the Flak cannon in any UT game, or the rocket launcher from the original UT. Now those were guns.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
The hypocrisy of this company is never ending. So you cut ties with gun manufacturers because?...they make guns? (I didn't read the whole article) or you don't want to pay to licence their look? Yet you make a game that uses said guns.....is EA trying to "cut ties" because of the whole "gun culture" controversy going on right now? This to me sounds rather idiotic. Next thing we know they are going to stop making violent video games.....because they are violent. We will be throwing snowballs and water ballons at each other in the Next CoD 7.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
EA has to do something to keep the Homophobes interested in the games they ruin.

The whole "bag of dicks" thing just has to stop...

What does homophobes have to do with this dicusssion? Nothing why did you have to bring it up? Stop being over sensitive.
 

AthlonXP

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
20,476
The hypocrisy of this company is never ending. So you cut ties with gun manufacturers because?...they make guns? (I didn't read the whole article) or you don't want to pay to licence their look? Yet you make a game that uses said guns.....is EA trying to "cut ties" because of the whole "gun culture" controversy going on right now? This to me sounds rather idiotic. Next thing we know they are going to stop making violent video games.....because they are violent. We will be throwing snowballs and water ballons at each other in the Next CoD 7.

I just feel they are taking advantage of this situation to not pay royalties...
 

HardUp4HardWare

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
4,274
What does homophobes have to do with this dicusssion? Nothing why did you have to bring it up? Stop being over sensitive.

DON'T WORRY, I AM NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HOMOPHOBES!!!

It was a reference to another stupid EA move where they blamed their bad image on Homophobes. That is why I brought it up, because EA pulls stupid shit all the time.

Thanks for asking.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
DON'T WORRY, I AM NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HOMOPHOBES!!!

It was a reference to another stupid EA move where they blamed their bad image on Homophobes. That is why I brought it up, because EA pulls stupid shit all the time.

Thanks for asking.

I get it, and I agree EA is a pretty crappy company, and they wonder why they get voted the worse company in the US 2 years straight....
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
Hey EA,

The guns in the games are VIRTUAL. They are not REAL. You're really not dropping anything because you never had anything to begin with.
 

stiltner

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 16, 2000
Messages
10,669
That will be kind of hard when their mouths are already full of them.

Always room for more dicks in the mouth of the EA.

With that said. This is spun as them distancing themselves from gun mfg..

Its a cost saving method. Pay no licensing, continue to use content unlicensed.

Sue people that pirate....err "use" your content unlicensed though.

EA, when Apple stops lawsuits, we'll be right there to take their place on shit hill mountain
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
I get it, and I agree EA is a pretty crappy company, and they wonder why they get voted the worse company in the US 2 years straight....

Because everyone's small personal dramas (or their friend's/some guy they know's) "dealing" with a company are the worst in the motherfucking world yo! :p
 

TechLarry

Can't find the G Spot
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,413
We don't have the money to pay the license fees anymore but we're still going to use your brand names. Because you know, we're in the age of Entitlements. Everyone is entitled to getting things for free.

And I bet the price of the games don't drop.

"Think of the consumers !"
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,906
Not to side with EA, but if EA wins it may be a boost for the sim racing world.

/Add a car to the sim, no licensing. Add a track to the sim, no licensing.

Ultimately though, I oppose EA's position in this matter.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
Step #1 Stop making games that involve pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

Step #2 Get an imagination.

Step #3 Create unique original guns like BFG, Portal Gun, or Guns with blades or chainsaws.

You nailed it. You really fucking NAILED it right on the head.

Innovation is something EA has never done well. I really can't imagine them lasting another 5 years without a serious restructuring at this point.
 

jon666

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
241
Sounds like a crazy PR attempt to bolster their image.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
 
Top