I don't know for sure, but i guess Rockstar used fake car manufacturers in the game to avoid all the annoying licensing costs back when they started out.
I can now imagine car manufactures lining up to pay Rockstar to include their cars in GTA.
What surprises me more is how not having those costly licenses can impact game enjoyment. Of course this will be a subjective view but when it comes to racing or generally sports games being able to use real names or brands is a critical factor in how well perceived the game is. European truck Simulator had a similar issue early on when the Actros was named "Majestic" but visually had been obviously a mercedes. My original plan when starting out was to get a "german car" quickly to enjoy the game and I just couldnt simply because of the name and the different logo. Once Mercedes benz granted official rights later on the Actros (which was popular even before) experienced a boost in popularity that indicates a direct link to the name and logo displayed.
Players usually dont think consciously about all this. We see various brands around every day of the week so seeing the same cars realistically rendered and named ingame isnt much of a big deal or noteworthy to begin with but allowing for such an "average" scenario can be really expensive with many indi devs being unable to raise the money required.
The advantage is that you as a developer can lean on the history and connected perception on said brand so your own work in regards to lore and background and pretty light. Whereas many fantasy games not set in lord of the rings or similarly famous worlds come up with pretty extensive lore and background chapters to allow the player to form a connection. Also the main reason why we see so many successor type games...it helps with marketing and player recognition.
It's not just the quick buck. Corpos would hate to see their brand being in the news for running over kids in a videogame for example.
Haha yeah the devs of ETS reported that the reason for not being able to use the Actros name and brand was because Mercedes didnt want their trucks to be shown or affiliated with crashes, even if only virtual (and the damage model is kind of subpar to begin with)
Sure...but I agree with the defenders here. Watching videos about space games...or any computer game with young children shows a lack of awareness as a parent, it's not watch with mother or SpongeBob squarepants fer goodness sake. A simple and easy solution is to wear headphones or keep your personal video game interests to such a time as your children are in bed. The swearing and adult references in video game content are completely irrelevant. Doesn't SC have an ESRB rating or something?
As I understand the OP this isnt something that used to be the case meaning the hosts usually displayed a professional behavior and only recently started going down the slur and adult language route or use it more extensively than slips might warrant. I m pretty sure if you have your kids watching because you deemed it "save" and are equally surprised of the use of explicit cuss words not meant for children ears you cant be blamed for showing a lack of awareness. Obviously the tone has changed to the worse (from kids-friendly to adult oriented). If you raise your voice in order to question the new direction or bring up your dissatisfaction thats perfectly okay.
And things can certainly change, happens everywhere else as well. It would be nice to have a CIG statement in this matter tho, not replies from nobodies who think they speak for the company. Once again (even tho I dont believe this is intended in any way) CiG simply does stuff and leaves its community to figure it out on their own....A+ communication skills ^^ When my nephew and niece became old enough to sit at the adults table while we talked we all had to go through a transition phase to change our vocabulary or expressions. We did it because we care about these two young human beings and also the parents who had to raise them to begin with. So verbal slips were tolerated and ignored for the most part because we all tried and sometimes failed.
Inquiring if the new tone is going to become the "new way of things" instead of being slips is fair IMO and also deserves an answer other than "this aint for kids to begin with" and "you failed as a parent".....this is exactly the level of toxicity I would expect from the SC community to be honest.
Red Cross debate...
I am not surprised that providing factual explanations triggers a defense reaction from people who perceive the explanation as a personal attack toward their beloved space game. Whats important in all this is if the red cross is legally protected or if its use or disuse in video games can be refused on those legal terms. Tippis provided an educational explanation which is also logically conclusive to me. It helped me see the red cross as more than simple colour and form and truth be told....it deserves recognition.
We all break rules all the time. That wasnt the point. I can at any time walk over the lawn of my neiighbour or the company property with the "stay OFF the lawn" signs and nobody will hunt me down or punish me for it. I dont think I did something terrible either but once I use my neihgbours lawn extensively walking a path into it or using it to transport heavy equipment to the road I m vulnerable to a lawsuit and rightly so. The defense then wont be "well I stepped on it a thousand times before and that never was a problem, why now?"
Common sense as well as finding a balance is the challenge here.
If private people use your logo for private use they are equally in the wrong but besides the impossebility to try and judge them for such transgressions nobody would probably care enough to make it an issue. The same act by a company, legal entity or performed on a massive scale is different and requires solution. I never paid much attention but the examples given of alienated red crosses makes a lot of sense. You can use a transparent cross form or use a different color or glowy effects without losing its meaning or message value and many video game companies do out of respect or in order to avoid legal problems.
The question for CIG based on their history of copy scandals is "dont they know or do they simply not care?". Now the official statement given by CIG indicates they simply dont care....thus CIG deserves the bash. Its not "an attack" when the company overstepps the line and gets called out for it. But obviously its okay for a lot of people I just have a problem with their motivation as usual.
I find it absolutely amazing that you think CIG can do no wrong, even in the face of international law and treaties.
Frankly its not a unique trait in this thread just the level of agression paired with it varies.
Some backers are extreme Ayn Rand types who think there should be no rules, regulations, etc. and corporations should do what they want.
In the US, Patricia Derges earned almost $200,000 by claiming to provide a COVID cure, which was obviously fake. The Ayn Rand types say, "so what?"
Its obviously the victims fault. They should ve known better. I see a parallel in Star Citizen when whales worth 50.000$+ are simultanously called "idiots" and defended as regular joes who "simply do what they want" depending on their view on the project. When something which applies to one person or situation does NOT apply to another even tho its the exact same thing...you know ^^
