# Shooters support the arms industry.



## CaptainCool (Dec 15, 2013)

Guns have always been a central part of games. Not all games of course, but a large percentage of all games that were ever made feature guns in some way.
We have fantasy weapons like the Needler from Halo or the Big Fucking Gun from Doom. But also have real guns in games, like the Deser Eagle or the AK47. Developers and publishers actually have to get licenses to put guns like that into their games and in some cases the arms manufacturers actually overlook the production of a game to make sure that their guns in those games fulfill the same standards as their real life counterparts! That they sound and perform just like the real thing. I think that is actually a pretty cool aspect when it comes to the developement of these titles because it makes them even more realistic which also makes them more immersive.

However, what I see a problem with is the involvement in the arms industry in games and the money they are getting from it.
Many people don't like guns. I can relate to that! Guns kill people and I think the world would be better without them. But many people who don't like guns do like games like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Buying these games means more money for the arms industry which means more guns.

Do you guys think these games should be supported despite the involvement of the arms industry? Do you see any moral problems with buying them and thus giving money to gun manufacturers?


----------



## Lucient (Dec 15, 2013)

Nope, no problem here.


----------



## Littlerock (Dec 15, 2013)

As I don't have any problem with guns, their manufacturers, and their typical owners, nope. All good here!


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And bears, bears kill people. 

Until we reach total world peace, we're gonna need guns. So I don't really have issue with supporting an industry that helps protect us.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

Hello sensationalist title.

Licenses need to be purchased for ANY genre of game where real world products are used. Licenses have to be purchased for racing sims, flight sims (combat and civilian), and really anything that has any reason to depict some specific item. Plenty of games use either fictitious weapons (mainly sci-fi) or rename their real world counterparts to avoid licensing disputes (Counter-Strike is a big one there), much the same as cheap / early days mobile racers use(d) nonspecific car models.

Personally, I don't think that licenses should be required to begin with considering you can look out your window and see Hondas and Toyotas without having to pay a fine to do so, but unfortunately, them's the breaks.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 15, 2013)

In other news, driving games support the automotive industry!

People play Gran Turismo for the Farrari 360 Spider and people play Call of Duty for the Colt M1A1 Carbine.

Having real brand name items represented in these sorts of games are a major aspect of the appeal to them and their franchises would be seriously harmed if they used generic stand ins.


----------



## DrDingo (Dec 15, 2013)

It's not a problem that the arms industry is making money from it. After all, that does not affect anybody except the companies that make them. Bottom line- I ain't hindered in any way if a gun company gets a little richer. None of us are.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

Gun companies happen to be gigantic and mostly involved with governments and it's stupid to act like they're the little rings of drug peddlers and the like. It won't make that much of a difference if they're getting money from licensing fees from videogames of all things.

Especially when you notice how different companies are getting *HUGE* amounts of cash from the people that use their products. Glock, Smith & Wesson, Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal, Heckler & Koch, Magnum Research, Steyr, Armalite, and countless other names are generating more than enough profit from Military and Law Enforcement organisations in their home countries and even abroad. Even if they weren't involved in videogames at all, they'd still be getting assloads of cash. Names like Remington, Mossberg, and Winchester will also be doing absolutely fine without the videogame thing AND the civilian market. 

Just take a look at the biggest living name in the gun industry: Mikhail Kalashnikov. He didn't even make _one single penny_ from what he made, and he has been working on the AK-47 since he first began work on it back in the 40s. The most widely produced, copied, used, loved, and feared gun on the planet will still keep on being used, made, and developed after he dies. This gun and many more like it didn't need the support of videogames or a USA-style civilian market to become successful.

Videogame company "support" or not, there will be absolutely no meaningful difference made either way. There will always be guns so long as somebody wants them. Videogame companies paying to use names will not "make more guns" - soldiers and policemen who happen to lack guns will.

There is absolutely zero point whatsoever in "fighting" this aside from american liberals feeling satisfied when they find out that the guns in games now not only look the exact same as they did previously, but now more of them have cringe-inducing fake names like "Mossington w/ Assault Clip attachment" or "Tommyknocker light machinepistol".


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

The point isn't whether or not it's making a difference in the industry, the point is realizing that by playing these games, you're supporting it. It's a personal morality topic.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> The point isn't whether or not it's making a difference in the industry, the point is realizing that by playing these games, you're supporting it. It's a morality topic.



"Do you as an individual feel good about yourself if you refuse to participate in something painted as evil by certain parts of the media despite it making zero difference whether you do or not, coupled with the fact that an armed military or police force begins as a huge mixed bag where the good acts and bad acts depend entirely on the actions of the consumer organisation or that of those individuals employed within it?"


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> "Do you as an individual feel good about yourself if you refuse to participate in something painted as evil by certain parts of the media despite it making zero difference whether you do or not


/Vegetarians

/Recycling


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> /Vegetarians
> 
> /Recycling



Seriously though, this is different to stuff like vegetarianism and recycled because the arms trade has _never_ needed anything to be popularised in the media. Between the 1890s and the 1960s Russia alone created more than 37 million Mosin-Nagant rifles. So long as a government somewhere has a budget, production lines, materials, and a target, there will be assloads of guns no matter what you do and it's naive to think otherwise.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Gun companies happen to be gigantic and mostly involved with governments and it's stupid to act like they're the little rings of drug peddlers and the like. It won't make that much of a difference if they're getting money from licensing fees from videogames of all things.
> 
> Especially when you notice how different companies are getting *HUGE* amounts of cash from the people that use their products. Glock, Smith & Wesson, Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal, Heckler & Koch, Magnum Research, Steyr, Armalite, and countless other names are generating more than enough profit from Military and Law Enforcement organisations in their home countries and even abroad. Even if they weren't involved in videogames at all, they'd still be getting assloads of cash. Names like Remington, Mossberg, and Winchester will also be doing absolutely fine without the videogame thing AND the civilian market.
> 
> ...



These companies are so huge that the money they get from game devs and publishers is pretty much irrelevant, that much is obvious. But what about just supporting these giant companies that make a living with war by letting them into something as casual as video games?


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> The point isn't whether or not it's making a difference in the industry, the point is realizing that by playing these games, you're supporting it. It's a personal morality topic.


This is kind of like saying any movie or show with product placement means you automatically support whatever brand is being featured. I play shooters because they're fun or because I like the story, not because I support a specific gun or company. I really don't even care if the guns are real life guns or not. 

And there's nothing inherently wrong with them getting money from their brands being featured. It's the fact that we (America) have such lax gun laws that creates the problem.


----------



## Inpw (Dec 15, 2013)

I see a big problem with it. Valve didn't ask my permission for the portal gun I built in my super secret lab.


----------



## Distorted (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't much like FPS type games. I can't really enjoy them. Though, the only problem I have with it are players who think they can do what they do in the game in real life. My brother once told me he played enough Call of Duty to know what to do in that kind of situation. Granted this is coming from someone who's never been in any kind of fight.


----------



## Seekrit (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> There is absolutely zero point whatsoever in "fighting" this aside from american liberals feeling satisfied when they find out that the guns in games now not only look the exact same as they did previously, but now more of them have cringe-inducing fake names like "Mossington w/ Assault Clip attachment" or "Tommyknocker light machinepistol".



Boy I will _fuck you up_ with my Tommyknocker light machinepistol >:V


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> This is kind of like saying any movie or show with product placement means you automatically support whatever brand is being featured. I play shooters because they're fun or because I like the story, not because I support a specific gun or company. I really don't even care if the guns are real life guns or not.
> 
> And there's nothing inherently wrong with them getting money from their brands being featured. It's the fact that we (America) have such lax gun laws that creates the problem.


Not kind of, this is saying that exactly. Supporting the gun industry might not be your intention, but buying those kinds of games is an action in support of the industry.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> These companies are so huge that the money they get from game devs and publishers is pretty much irrelevant, that much is obvious. But what about just supporting these giant companies that make a living with war by letting them into something as casual as video games?



I wouldn't call titles like ArmA, Men of War, or Red Orchestra "casual" as they rely very heavily on realism, thus real-world authenticity is almost a necessity. Those games are bought _because_ they're authentic and made to be like the real thing as much as possible and to ruin that would more than likely result in a negative response from its target audience.

With the exception of ArmA 3, which uses a lot of made-up guns for  something that comes from a long line of games based entirely on modern  day military simulation being put down to a T. While people liked what  ArmA 3 had to offer, there are people who found themselves turned off  from the fictional future spacegun thing, what with being fans of ultra authenticity, an element that OPF/ARMA are known to excel at.

Games like Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, or Farcry could get away with it, as they're not exactly known among gamers/gun enthusiasts for being realistic or authentic at all, and are not normally enjoyed by the niche who actually would appreciate real names and real-world designs.

So basically, standing up to this won't make a meaningful difference to the _gun_ industry, and the only thing it can do to games depends entirely on the genre being affected. You could make the change to casual shooters where the majority of the players are not normally informed in what is/isn't authentic enough to care/see a difference, or you could make the change to mil-sim games where its fans would cringe and complain.

I fail to see any moral high ground here except for an individual game dev studio deciding what to do with its money to yield a better benefit for its game(s) and trying to find a moral high ground is incredibly pointless and will only go around in circles anyway.



SirRob said:


> Not kind of, this is saying that exactly.  Supporting the gun industry might not be your intention, but buying  those kinds of games is an action in support of the industry.



I shouldn't need to explain this again.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't think this should be an issue at all. :I
I never even knew about the arms industry's involvement until now. Not a big deal to me.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 15, 2013)

It disturbs me more that people don't seem to grasp the idea of Product Placement.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I shouldn't need to explain this again.


You're right, you shouldn't, because my logic is flawless and needs no further explanation.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> You're right, you shouldn't, because my logic is flawless and needs no further explanation.



I'm going to assume you're joking.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 15, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> It disturbs me more that people don't seem to grasp the idea of Product Placement.



I honestly think there is a difference between mere product placement and supporting the gun manufacturers that make a living by selling guns to governments so their soldiers can kill each other by buying the games that they approved :T
That is a problem in my opinion, I have always been pretty anti-guns and I am appalled by the fact that game devs are working with these companies


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I'm going to assume you're joking.


Well I certainly don't see where you explained it the first time, so you must've meant it was perfect.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I honestly think there is a difference between mere product placement and supporting the gun manufacturers that make a living by selling guns to governments so their soldiers can kill each other by buying the games that they approved :T
> That is a problem in my opinion, I have always been pretty anti-guns and I am appalled by the fact that game devs are working with these companies



Okay, since everyone in this thread is so wrapped up in appealing to emotion and their own naivety, I'm just gonna let you guys circlejerk while you enjoy wilfully remaining ignorant of incredibly basic concepts.



SirRob said:


> Well I certainly don't see where you explained it  the first time, so you must've meant it was perfect.



Yeah, I shouldn't expect people like you to understand things like "demand equals supply".


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> /Vegetarians
> 
> /Recycling



/voting

If this is a serious post, its mentality exhibits much of what's wrong with our civilisation. 

I don't care about weapon products featuring in games however, because that's a morally inert subject. The total sum of money weapons companies make via this route must be a minimal part of their income and the existence of weapons companies is not inherently bad. 

Who can buy those weapons is, as someone mentioned earlier people kill people, so if you care about the subject administration is the answer, not whether the companies make money from artists' representations of their products.


----------



## Aetius (Dec 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> *I honestly think there is a difference between mere product placement and supporting the gun manufacturers that make a living by selling guns to governments so their soldiers can kill each other by buying the games that they approved :T*
> That is a problem in my opinion, I have always been pretty anti-guns and I am appalled by the fact that game devs are working with these companies



Product placement _*IS*_ supporting those companies. That is the whole point of product placement.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Yeah, I shouldn't expect people like you to understand things like "demand equals supply".


How does that have anything at all to do with the post you were taking a crap on? Am I just that stupid or something? I'm really not getting it here.



			
				Me said:
			
		

> "Supporting the gun industry might not be your intention, but buying those kinds of games is an action in support of the industry."


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> How does that have anything at all to do with the post you were taking a crap on? Am I just that stupid or something? I'm really not getting it here.



I already outlined why "supporting the gun industry" through purchasing videogames that pay royalties/one-time fees to make use of a gun's name is going to make little difference. 

It doesn't _matter_ if you're anti-gun or pro-gun, these gun companies are going to continue profiting no matter what, so long as there are people who want to buy their guns. Theoretically, you could successfully boycott a gun company making deer rifles that profit exclusively from the civilian market (good luck), but you're never going to stop the companies that create rifles, rockets, and machine guns that create the most significant and meaningful amount of guns in the world as they're already making millions to billions of whatever currency from organisations that purchase the companies' products by the thousands to the millions.

Any profit that these meaningful gun companies make from videogames is nothing more than a christmas bonus.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Not kind of, this is saying that exactly. Supporting the gun industry might not be your intention, but buying those kinds of games is an action in support of the industry.



You're wrong.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

Flatout.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I already outlined why "supporting the gun industry" through purchasing videogames that pay royalties/one-time fees to make use of a gun's name is going to make little difference.
> 
> It doesn't _matter_ if you're anti-gun or pro-gun, these gun companies are going to continue profiting no matter what, so long as there are people who want to buy their guns. Theoretically, you could successfully boycott a gun company making deer rifles that profit exclusively from the civilian market (good luck), but you're never going to stop the companies that create rifles, rockets, and machine guns that create the most significant and meaningful amount of guns in the world as they're already making millions to billions of whatever currency from organisations that purchase the companies' products by the thousands to the millions.
> 
> Any profit that these meaningful gun companies make from videogames is nothing more than a christmas bonus.


I established that I'm not arguing about whether it's making a difference on the industry. I'm saying that your actions are supporting the industry, regardless of the intention or the amount of money generated. If you're going to buy those games, you need to acknowledge that. 

But I mean, people here are always pointing out my lack of education, so like, take that with a grain of salt, because I'm a moron.



Runefox said:


> You're wrong.


"I don't support farmers abusing their animals, but I'll buy the products of the companies that fund them." 

Same logic.


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

People want realisim in video games but then complain when the realisim they don't like is thrown in too. Get over it. If you really feel that a video game company is doing something wrong, don't buy their product. And don't feel offended if someone disagrees with you and buys said product and enjoys it.


----------



## ThisisGabe (Dec 15, 2013)

"Buying these games means more money for the arms industry which means more guns."

I think the buying licenses is just a one time payment, I don't think the gun industry gets a percentage of sales.

"Do you guys think these games should be supported despite the involvement of the arms industry?"

No. The only people who should be over exposed to violence are adults and adults should be getting a job and not staying at home all day wasting their lives on video games.. like MANY adults I do know.

"Do you see any moral problems with buying them and thus giving money to gun manufacturers?"

Not really. The gun industries intent is mostly to support self defense and SALES. Morally they're fine.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> I established that I'm not arguing about whether it's making a difference on the industry. I'm saying that your actions are supporting the industry, regardless of the intention or the amount of money generated. If you're going to buy those games, you need to acknowledge that.


Oh no, I guess I'm supporting the military industrial complex whenever I play an Ace Combat game because Lockheed-Martin and Boeing need a license to show their shit on-screen. Guess I'm also a supporter of Ford, Chevrolet, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Ferrari, BMW, Lamborghini, Koenigsegg, Maserati, Bentley, Volkswagen, Porsche, Fiat, and every other automaker in existence when I play a racing game.

Message received, loud and clear, the only games not involved in blood money are Nintendo games.



			
				SirRob said:
			
		

> I'm a moron.


.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Oh no, I guess I'm supporting the military industrial complex whenever I play an Ace Combat game because Lockheed-Martin and Boeing need a license to show their shit on-screen. Guess I'm also a supporter of Ford, Chevrolet, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Ferrari, BMW, Lamborghini, Koenigsegg, Maserati, Bentley, Volkswagen, Porsche, Fiat, and every other automaker in existence when I play a racing game.
> 
> Message received, loud and clear, the only games not involved in blood money are Nintendo games.


Yup, you got me Rune, youuuu got me! I was just trying to make Nintendo look good! That was my whole argument! Now let's turn this into a Rob bashing thread and lock it when I try to defend myself, like last time!


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

@ThisisGabe: I believe that's usually how it's done. At the same time, the gun companies themselves could be paying money to have their products featured too. 



SirRob said:


> Not kind of, this is saying that exactly. Supporting the gun industry might not be your intention, but buying those kinds of games is an action in support of the industry.


No it's not. To use my phone as an example, it was used in the new James Bond movie. But me going to see that movie doesn't mean I'm supporting Sony. Buying Sony products means I support Sony. Buying things _related_ to Sony means I support Sony. Watching a movie in which their product is featured doesn't mean I support Sony. 



CaptainCool said:


> I honestly think there is a difference  between mere product placement and supporting the gun manufacturers that  make a living by selling guns to governments so their soldiers can kill  each other by buying the games that they approved :T


As I've already mentioned, it's likely the manufacturers pay to have their products featured. In which case, it's still mere product placement. 

I'd also like to throw out that cars kill people too. So you shouldn't buy any racing games that feature real cars because they kill thousands of people annually. (I realize that cars aren't designed to kill people but you get the idea :u)


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Yup, you got me Rune, youuuu got me! I was just trying to make Nintendo look good! That was my whole argument! Now let's turn this into a Rob bashing thread and lock it when I try to defend myself, like last time!



I actually meant that as more of a sarcastic reference to the fact that Nintendo games are never grounded in anything remotely resembling reality, but hey, if that's what you're up to, it sure as hell makes a lot more sense than actually believing that I support the arms industry, oil tycoons, the automotive industry, and illegal street racing based on my choice of video games.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> I established that I'm not arguing about whether it's making a difference on the industry. I'm saying that your actions are supporting the industry, regardless of the intention or the amount of money generated. If you're going to buy those games, you need to acknowledge that.
> 
> "I don't support farmers abusing their animals, but I'll buy the products of the companies that fund them."
> 
> Same logic.



No, it is not. 

For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 and its variants have been adopted by over 40 countries' militaries and police forces. The company profits from selling to those be it either production licenses or shipments of the product by contract. That's a shitload of money, yeah? What they can sell to civilians is no different to what can already be sold to civilians under law. That and whatever cash they may be getting from videogames.

It profits mainly through contracts from governments, those being NATO and its allies. For example, USA Homeland Security had the largest handgun procurement ever with H&K, 65,000 handguns for over 26 million dollars.

Whatever gets done with those guns is in the hands of nobody but the people holding said guns. Soldiers, cops, and agents. _Governments_.

If the governments want guns, they will get guns and do what they will with them. They, their bank accounts, and their business couldn't give less of a shit about you supporting them or not by buying VIDEOGAMES.

Gun companies don't commit atrocities. They make guns and sell them under lawful means.

Governments do _things_. They may liberate an oppressed population. They may be used for law enforcement. They may be used for genocide._Who the hell knows_?

Abusive farmers commit atrocities. They give living animals shitty treatment and then kill them.

There is absolutely no similarity between the "logic" behind a farmer treating his animals like shit and companies being contracted by governments (or even outright controlled - Heckler & Koch used to belong to the British Ministry of Defense) who do what they will.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> No it's not. To use my phone as an example, it was used in the new James Bond movie. But me going to see that movie doesn't mean I'm supporting Sony. Buying Sony products means I support Sony. Buying things _related_ to Sony means I support Sony. Watching a movie in which their product is featured doesn't mean I support Sony.


It's a physical vs. mental thing. You're giving money towards a production that involved those companies. That is unquestionably physical support. Mentally you might not want to _fully_ support an indirect company. But the knowledge that they worked on it doesn't keep you from paying for the product. It's not fully supporting the company, but it is indeed supporting it in some form. If you _don't_ support a company that had involvement in the production, then that becomes a problem-- it's hypocritical, because you actually are supporting it in that manner.


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> It's a physical vs. mental thing. You're giving money towards a production that involved those companies. That is unquestionably physical support. Mentally you might not want to _fully_ support an indirect company. But the knowledge that they worked on it doesn't keep you from paying for the product. It's not fully supporting the company, but it is indeed supporting it in some form. If you _don't_ support a company that had involvement in the production, then that becomes a problem-- it's hypocritical, because you actually are supporting it in that manner.


I'm not really sure how much clearer I can get here


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> It's a physical vs. mental thing. You're giving money towards a production that involved those companies. That is unquestionably physical support. Mentally you might not want to _fully_ support an indirect company. But the knowledge that they worked on it doesn't keep you from paying for the product. It's not fully supporting the company, but it is indeed supporting it in some form. If you _don't_ support a company that had involvement in the production, then that becomes a problem-- it's hypocritical, because you actually are supporting it in that manner.



Yes hi, I'd like to make a Vietnam war documentary, but I don't want to have to pay licensing fees because that would be supporting war and guns and those things are bad. Colt/ArmaLite, Bell Helicopter, Chrysler, MacDonnell Douglas/Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, and any other licensed equipment can't be used. Replace them with walkie-talkies.


----------



## Littlerock (Dec 15, 2013)

So if someone wants to play cawadoody, but feels morally obliged to not 'support a gun company' by acquiring such a game, would they be on the moral high ground if they play only a pirated copy of the game? 


...Did this thread just justify piracy with (skewed) morality?


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> I'm not really sure how much clearer I can get here


You're contradicting yourself when you say you don't support a company and yet pay for something they were involved in-- even if it's just a small part. It's not clear at all, actually.



Littlerock said:


> So if someone wants to play cawadoody, but feels morally obliged to not 'support a gun company' by acquiring such a game, would they be on the moral high ground if they play only a pirated copy of the game?
> 
> 
> ...Did this thread just justify piracy with (skewed) morality?


They shouldn't play the game at all. By playing the game you're devoting your time and increasing the product's exposure, even if that exposure is just to yourself. The devotion of money is always support, but support comes from more than just money,


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> You're contradicting yourself when you say you don't support something and yet pay for something they were involved in-- even if it's just a small part. It's not clear at all, actually.


But... It's... Not... Involved... It's just legality. I mean hell, that's why non-gaming commercials that show kids playing a game usually have the sound effects random beeps and boops despite using a modern handheld because they'd need to license anything better.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> But... It's... Not... Involved... It's just legality. I mean hell, that's why non-gaming commercials that show kids playing a game usually have the sound effects random beeps and boops despite using a modern handheld because they'd need to license anything better.


The act of allowing a work to use something you produced is a form of involvement. Someone asks to use my name? I'm suddenly involved in their project. It's not a lot of involvement, but it's there. I'm really arguing for something small, here-- almost insignificant. But that doesn't mean it's nonexistant, which the rest of you are arguing.


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> You're contradicting yourself when you say you don't support something and yet pay for something they were involved in-- even if it's just a small part. It's not clear at all, actually.


But I'm not unless they partnered with them or something, then they would get a percentage of money made from sales. Buying license to use their stuff or conversely the company paying someone to use their stuff doesn't equal support nor does the company see any percentage of the money if they do that I believe. 

It kind of happens in this case that I own several Sony products and do support them but that's beside the point.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> They shouldn't play the game at all. By playing the game you're devoting your time and increasing the product's exposure, even if that exposure is just to yourself.



So basically you just hate guns as they are evil that should be silenced and not even mentioned in games by name, fuck logic, just your feelings.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> But I'm not unless they partnered with them or something, then they would get a percentage of money made from sales. Buying license to use their stuff or conversely the company paying someone to use their stuff doesn't equal support nor does the company see any percentage of the money if they do that I believe.
> 
> It kind of happens in this case that I own several Sony products and do support them but that's beside the point.


Eating the chicken is okay because it's already dead. 
You're not directly giving those companies money, but you're encouraging further collaborations. 
People buy the game with the AK-47 in it, so other games will try to get the AK-47.



Gibby said:


> So basically you just hate guns as they are evil that should be silenced and not even mentioned in games by name, fuck logic, just your feelings.


Look at the first post I made here and tell me you're not missing my point.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

I've actually got a serious question.


...

What in the motherfuck is going on in here? .-.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> The act of allowing a work to use something you produced is a form of involvement. Someone asks to use my name? I'm suddenly involved in their project. It's not a lot of involvement, but it's there. I'm really arguing for something small, here-- almost insignificant. But that doesn't mean it's nonexistant, which the rest of you are arguing.



That's... Not... It's just... Not. I don't even know how to explain it any clearer.

If I make a Vietnam war documentary, and in order to preserve historical accuracy, I depict fighter planes and guns used in the war, does that mean that I am supporting these things financially, or does it mean that I'm paying for licensing fees to keep myself from getting sued?

If I buy Call of Duty, does that mean I have a stake in Heckler & Koch? Can I get a free MP5?

EDIT: 



SirRob said:


> People buy the game with the AK-47 in it, so other games will try to get the AK-47.


... No. People *use the AK-47 in real life*, so games will try to get the AK-47.

This is getting ludicrous.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Look at the first post I made here and tell me you're not missing my point.



Oh I missed that part of your view, sorry. :c

But what _is_ your point? That the defense industry gets a little more money from a civilian source when you buy games that use royalty payments (as opposed to one-time fees) to gun companies? What's the problem, then?

If you want to make this solely about how someone individually feels about the fact that some of their money goes to gun companies, I personally feel pretty cool about it.


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

If I bought a game with knockoff gun names, would that mean I'm against gun companies?


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

Antronach said:


> If I bought a game with knockoff gun names, would that mean I'm against gun companies?



No, it means you're all for indie gun companies, you gun-hipster. You have to be a dirty pirate to really send the message home to those evil people.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> That's... Not... It's just... Not. I don't even know how to explain it any clearer.
> 
> If I make a Vietnam war documentary, and in order to preserve historical accuracy, I depict fighter planes and guns used in the war, does that mean that I am supporting these things financially, or does it mean that I'm paying for licensing fees to keep myself from getting sued?
> 
> ...


-Both, probably. If the documentary is slandering those things, then it would counteract the support. But if you're just doing a documentary? Yes, you're supporting the industry. I buy a spoon, I'm supporting the spoon maker. 

-Supporting something is suddenly investing in something, yes, and I'm sure many people will agree with you because it's funny. 

-I'm not gonna argue with that. But you're not arguing against my point, either. Remember, my point is that you're supporting everyone involved by paying for what they produced. It doesn't matter if that support is the main factor for everyone getting involved, that's not my point.


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Eating the chicken is okay because it's already dead.
> You're not directly giving those companies money, but you're encouraging further collaborations.
> People buy the game with the AK-47 in it, so other games will try to get the AK-47.


But if you eat chicken, then you're supporting the cruel and unlawful practices of commercial farming. 

Also collaboration isn't the same as using the rights to something. If you're in collaboration with someone, the two companies share profits. Buying the rights to something means you typically pay once to use it. Paying royalties means you continuously pay the rights holder to use their stuff.


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

Then I should play fps's without guns?

Oh wait then I'd support companies that makes grenadess and knifes. Heaven forbid I support those ginsu fuckers.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

I support Hyperion and Torgue arms. :B
Social Interfacer and Double Penetrating Unkempt Harold too OP.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 15, 2013)

I think CaptainCool is just overcompensating because his nation killed Anne Frank. :X


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> -Both, probably. If the documentary is slandering those things, then it would counteract the support. But if you're just doing a documentary? Yes, you're supporting the industry. I buy a spoon, I'm supporting the spoon maker.


Uhh... Okay... So the crux of your argument is that financial support != moral support, yet somehow if you pay the licensing fees and then slam them that's counteracting the support? So if the documentary is a "war is hell" documentary about the human casualties of war and yet it contains these items because (SHOCK AND HORROR) they were there in reality, you're still supporting the arms industry? And if the documentary is instead about how terrible (x) weapon is, that's not supporting the industry?

What is even going on in your head right now.



> -I'm not gonna argue with that. But you're not arguing against my point, either. Remember, my point is that you're supporting everyone involved by paying for what they produced. It doesn't matter if that support is the main factor for everyone getting involved, that's not my point.


Except I'm not paying for what they produced. I'm paying for content that happens to include visual representations of their products. The law says you can't do that without permission, so any product that has any authenticity as a real world analogue will have to pay to license them. It isn't the same thing. At all. I'm not supporting Lockheed-Martin by buying Ace Combat any more than I'm supporting Halliburton by purchasing Gran Turismo. It's not financially supporting them. There's a difference. Any movie, book, video game, TV show, stage show, whatever that wants to use this stuff has to get a license for it. It's how it works.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Oh I missed that part of your view, sorry. :c
> 
> But what _is_ your point? That the defense industry gets a little more money from a civilian source when you buy games that use royalty payments (as opposed to one-time fees) to gun companies? What's the problem, then?
> 
> If you want to make this solely about how someone individually feels about the fact that some of their money goes to gun companies, I personally feel pretty cool about it.


The problem is that people aren't acknowledging that their support extends to those companies. My argument is that your support extends to everyone involved in the project. Which is really a small argument, yet I have to passionately defend it because I value my opinions and they're being attacked.



Willow said:


> But if you eat chicken, then you're supporting the cruel and unlawful practices of commercial farming.
> 
> Also collaboration isn't the same as using the rights to something. If you're in collaboration with someone, the two companies share profits. Buying the rights to something means you typically pay once to use it. Paying royalties means you continuously pay the rights holder to use their stuff.


Collaborations don't always involve money though, so I think that word's flexible enough for me to use, there. You understand the point I was trying to make though, yes?


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

So if I go to a wal-mart that sells guns I support the gun industry, even if I just go in there to grab a bag of chips?


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

This is the most ludicrous argument I've ever seen in this forum section.


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Collaborations don't always involve money though, so I think that word's flexible enough for me to use, there.


When you have two parties that aren't related in any way to each other then _yes_ money will be involved unless the collaboration doesn't actually yield any profit. Collaboration also implies that the two companies did equal amounts of work. 

Game companies collaborate with each other to make games. Gun companies do not collaborate with game companies. They contribute. 


> You understand the point I was trying to make though, yes?


I do, and I'm trying to tell you why it's false.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Uhh... Okay... So the crux of your argument is that financial support != moral support, yet somehow if you pay the licensing fees and then slam them that's counteracting the support? So if the documentary is a "war is hell" documentary about the human casualties of war and yet it contains these items because (SHOCK AND HORROR) they were there in reality, you're still supporting the arms industry? And if the documentary is instead about how terrible (x) weapon is, that's not supporting the industry?
> 
> What is even going on in your head right now.
> 
> ...


...If those casualities resulted from the arms industry, then it counteracts your financial support. I don't see how that's not logical. 

The company both designed the visual quality of the product and gave permission for it to be rendered into the game. I don't understand how that can't be considered involvement. Without the company's involvement, the game wouldn't be the same.



Willow said:


> When you have two parties that aren't related in any way to each other then _yes_ money will be involved unless the collaboration doesn't actually yield any profit. Collaboration also implies that the two companies did equal amounts of work.
> 
> Game companies collaborate with each other to make games. Gun companies do not collaborate with game companies. They contribute.
> 
> I do, and I'm trying to tell you why it's false.


Then you didn't get my point because you're arguing over the definition of a word. My point was that, by giving a production the rights to use a something of yours, you are involving yourself into the production.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 15, 2013)

Antronach said:


> So if I go to a wal-mart that sells guns I support the gun industry, even if I just go in there to grab a bag of chips?



Shit, let's not forget what you're supporting when you buy a graphics calculator from Texas Instruments!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

HARM

...

*snicker*


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> HARM
> 
> ...
> 
> *snicker*


It's the military, they abbriviate _everything_.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 15, 2013)

GENERAL ELECTRIC HELPED MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  THROW YOUR WASHER AND DRYER AWAY YOU WARMONGERS!


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> ...If those casualities resulted from the arms industry, then it counteracts your financial support. I don't see how that's not logical.


But whose? At the time of the Vietnam war, many of the Vietcong's weapons were either Soviet-built or improvised, as are most weapons seen in battle today. The only weapons that resulted in an industry out to make a profit were those used by US soldiers. So... Really, unless you're looking at it from the Vietcong point of view, you're looking at not-arms-industry arms. Which means you're still 'supporting' the arms industry of the one country whose munitions are also intellectual property.



> The company both designed the visual quality of the product and gave permission for it to be rendered into the game. I don't understand how that can't be considered involvement. Without the company's involvement, the game wouldn't be the same.


*But these things exist in reality*. What would you propose they use instead?

*My* point is that IP law shouldn't exist in this manner but I'm not the one making the law. In the meantime, money has to go to licensing these things if any semblance of realism is going to be had in any media.



XoPachi said:


> HARM


High-velocity anti-radiation missile. Seeks out radar and shuts it up.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

Antronach said:


> It's the military, they abbriviate _everything_.



I know. It's just...too perfect for Ashley's point. XD


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> GENERAL ELECTRIC HELPED MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  THROW YOUR WASHER AND DRYER AWAY YOU WARMONGERS!


Honestly we are techincally supporting the production of nuclear weapons by paying for a company that helps produce them. If you're not doing anything to counteract that, then how can you say you don't support it?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> High-velocity anti-radiation missile. Seeks out radar and shuts it up.



Also, one surprisingly lucky B-52 Stratofortress. :O


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Also, one surprisingly lucky B-52 Stratofortress. :O



Would you call that lucky?

It DID get a pretty kickass nickname out of it


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> But whose? At the time of the Vietnam war, many of the Vietcong's weapons were either Soviet-built or improvised, as are most weapons seen in battle today. The only weapons that resulted in an industry out to make a profit were those used by US soldiers. So... Really, unless you're looking at it from the Vietcong point of view, you're looking at not-arms-industry arms. Which means you're still 'supporting' the arms industry of the one country whose munitions are also intellectual property.
> 
> 
> *But these things exist in reality*. What would you propose they use instead?
> ...


You're attacking arms _in general_ when you make a documentary about them killing people.

They're free to use those things! 
I'm not gonna argue about legal stuff. You wanna make that point, go ahead.


----------



## Antronach (Dec 15, 2013)

So if one spends any money on anything they should face the consequences that their money might just sorta maybe used for EVIL and perhaps horde money away like some anit-war miser. :l


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Then you didn't get my point because you're arguing over the definition of a word. My point was that, by giving a production the rights to use a something of yours, you are involving yourself into the production.


Well duh, that's obvious. But you also say that if I buy a product, then I support a company. But if I don't support that company, then it's hypocritical to buy a product the company was [indirectly] involved in. Even if it was just product placement. 

These two things do not correlate with each other and is actually a logical fallacy. I don't buy CoD because I don't support guns, I don't buy CoD because I don't like it. I couldn't care less if the guns were real models or not.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> They're free to use those things!





SirRob said:


> I'm not gonna argue about legal stuff. You wanna make that point, go ahead.


?????

(They aren't free to use those things unless they license them, that is the entire point)


----------



## Toshabi (Dec 15, 2013)

I was going to say "Is this another DarrylWolf thread?". Then it was just CC. Eh, close enough.


----------



## TransformerRobot (Dec 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Guns have always been a central part of games. Not all games of course, but a large percentage of all games that were ever made feature guns in some way.
> We have fantasy weapons like the Needler from Halo or the Big Fucking Gun from Doom. But also have real guns in games, like the Deser Eagle or the AK47. Developers and publishers actually have to get licenses to put guns like that into their games and in some cases the arms manufacturers actually overlook the production of a game to make sure that their guns in those games fulfill the same standards as their real life counterparts! That they sound and perform just like the real thing. I think that is actually a pretty cool aspect when it comes to the developement of these titles because it makes them even more realistic which also makes them more immersive.
> 
> However, what I see a problem with is the involvement in the arms industry in games and the money they are getting from it.
> ...



My grandfather owns guns and he's perfectly fine. We've never seen him shoot another human being.

It's not the arms industry's fault. It's because of people who are clearly too unstable to be carrying guns. That's how Sandy Hook happened.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> My grandfather owns guns and he's perfectly fine. We've never seen him shoot another human being.
> 
> It's not the arms industry's fault. It's because of people who are clearly too unstable to be carrying guns. That's how Sandy Hook happened.



Way to completely miss the point of the thread, thank you.

Actually, that was a breath of fresh air considering where we've been for the past three pages. :/


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Guns have always been a central part of games. Not all games of course, but a large percentage of all games that were ever made feature guns in some way.
> We have fantasy weapons like the Needler from Halo or the Big Fucking Gun from Doom. But also have real guns in games, like the Deser Eagle or the AK47. Developers and publishers actually have to get licenses to put guns like that into their games and in some cases the arms manufacturers actually overlook the production of a game to make sure that their guns in those games fulfill the same standards as their real life counterparts! That they sound and perform just like the real thing. I think that is actually a pretty cool aspect when it comes to the developement of these titles because it makes them even more realistic which also makes them more immersive.
> 
> However, what I see a problem with is the involvement in the arms industry in games and the money they are getting from it.
> ...


CaptainCool. . . I'm currently playing a 2d danmaku shooter where the two main common playable characters in most of the games one is a priestess who throws shinto seals, the other is a magician who shoots stars and fights against fairies, youkai with animal ears, ghosts, gods, immortals, people that live on the moon, vampires, dragons, people that can freeze time.  Unless you can prove that mythological things are real and that the video game studio is in on a secret conspiracy to make video games based off their abilities I'm pretty damn certain that just cause video games model themselves after something fictional or real doesn't automatically mean they're actually supporting something.

To use a analogy it's like the people that were claiming bioshock infinite was supporting racism; it's pure nonsense to think that the depiction of something means that they're supporting something.  Unless the video game studio itself is directly intervening in with promoting arms industry this thread is nonsense in that it assumes guilt by proximity.

If you're against the arms industry then maybe you should be focusing on the arms industry itself instead of assuming that depicting something means that by default you support it.


"Okay, let me be perfectly clear.  This is not jumping the shark.  Okay repeat that again.  This is not jumping the shark.  Ohnonono.  This is jumping the shark, coming back, shooting it in the balls, raping it, eating it's flesh, consuming it's soul, mounting it's head on the wall; and then doing the same thing to twelve more fucking sharks just to be safe"


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

I thought you were leaving...


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

Don't forget the the part where the video game industry is misogynist. So by supporting the game industry, you're misogynist. Maybe we should just not play video games at all 



Toshabi said:


> I was going to say "Is this another DarrylWolf thread?". Then it was just CC. Eh, close enough.


For it to be a DarrylWolf thread there would need to be some mention of race or race relations.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 15, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I thought you were leaving...


Mostly.  I can only be on like once every couple weeks.  Right now a client is being a douche that removed the watermark to my project then tried to run away with it and there's a conflict going on so I'm stuck twiddling my thumbs cause he thought it was legal to do so.  I'm waiting until morning until the studio's designated lawyer we call gets in his office tomorrow to remind the client just what sorts of bad things we can do their company financially for doing this.

Side note:
Do NOT ever steal something professionally and try to run away with it thinking that just cause you can torrent your movies means you can get away with it business wise without ending up with a broken hand.  Studios do NOT fuck around when a client steals the project without paying.

Cause it was a entire campaign and the severity of it they're probably going to try to settle due to that if it did go to court the amount they would owe us would completely and totally screw them over.  My boss is happy with me though, cause most new people in my field don't have enough common sense to think clients could potentially steal projects and is glad that I made sure to save everything related to it.

What pretty much happened was,
"Oh boy!  A new employee fresh out of college!  That must me he's a total idiot!  Let's ask for the new recruit to do the project so we can steal it and not pay them"
"Not so fast!  I made sure to save everything related to the project so clients couldn't do that"
"OH SHIT!"

On that note I should probably go to bed now, cause I have to get to the office earlier cause of this.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> Well duh, that's obvious. But you also say that if I buy a product, then I support a company. But if I don't support that company, then it's hypocritical to buy a product the company was [indirectly] involved in. Even if it was just product placement.
> 
> These two things do not correlate with each other and is actually a logical fallacy. I don't buy CoD because I don't support guns, I don't buy CoD because I don't like it. I couldn't care less if the guns were real models or not.


I'm going to break the situation down, for myself.

A
1. Company was involved in making product
2. You find out company was slightly involved in product
3. You don't care about said company
4. Company doesn't stop you from paying for product
5. You buy product
6. Company benefits slightly/indirectly from the purchase
7. You have supported the company through your purchase

B
1. Company was involved in making product
2. You find out company was slightly involved in product
3. You dislike said company
4. Company doesn't stop you from paying for product
5. You buy product
6. Company benefits slightly/indirectly from the purchase
7. You have supported the company through your purchase, despite your dislike of the company

Step 7 is where the argument lies, so the fallacy must be there. But the definition of support in this context is to "give assistance to, esp. financially; enable to function or act." Buy purchasing the product, you are doing this, albeit insignificantly. It is not a fallacy.



Runefox said:


> ?????
> 
> (They aren't free to use those things unless they license them, that is the entire point)


Right. But I don't have a problem with companies licensing stuff for use. That's not what I'm arguing.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

But that's not how it works.



SirRob said:


> Right. But I don't have a problem with companies licensing stuff for use. That's not what I'm arguing.


That IS what you're arguing. That is the very CORE of what you're arguing. Game devs who make shooters are licensing guns for use in the game. You're arguing that this supports the arms industry.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> But that's not how it works.
> 
> 
> That IS what you're arguing. That is the very CORE of what you're arguing. Game devs who make shooters are licensing guns for use in the game. You're arguing that this supports the arms industry.


If you still don't get what I'm arguing, then the last hundred billion hours have been a waste of my time. What I'm arguing is what I said in my second post in the topic. It's about the consumers, not the developers.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> If you still don't get what I'm arguing, then the last hundred billion hours have been a waste of my time. What I'm arguing is what I said in my second post in the topic. It's about the consumers, not the developers.



I get that. But while I'm looking at it from the developer's side, which is the side directly involved in this licensing, you're saying that consumers alone bear the burden of morality when it comes to this 'association'. But by that logic, you shouldn't be on the internet, since it was a military project. You should also do as Ashes said and throw out anything you have made by General Electric or Texas Instruments, since they're also involved in weapons of war.

God help you if you've ever bought anything by IBM.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> I get that. But while I'm looking at it from the developer's side, which is the side directly involved in this licensing, you're saying that consumers alone bear the burden of morality when it comes to this 'association'. But by that logic, you shouldn't be on the internet, since it was a military project. You should also do as Ashes said and throw out anything you have made by General Electric or Texas Instruments, since they're also involved in weapons of war.
> 
> God help you if you've ever bought anything by IBM.


In your last post you said 'But that's not how it works'. You were referring to the fallacy, right? How doesn't it work? What number doesn't work. 

I'm not saying the consumers alone bear that burden, I'm just arguing solely over the consumer because I don't want the topic to expand to a larger degree. I had a simple point and I'm trying to defend it.

I'm on here fully knowing that to some extent I'm supporting all of those things. We live in an extremely flawed world and I know I'm sure as heck not helping out.


----------



## Willow (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> Step 7 is where the argument lies, so the fallacy must be there. But the definition of support in this context is to "give assistance to, esp. financially; enable to function or act." Buy purchasing the product, you are doing this, albeit insignificantly. It is not a fallacy.


But if you buy a game, you're supporting the company that made it unless otherwise stated. 

As I've mentioned before, the way rights tend to work is either a company lends its rights to someone else for them to use their brand or whatever, or the person buys rights from a company to use their brand. But the rights holder only sees a one lump sum going in or out. 

Now if a company sponsors something, they get money from sales. But I don't think the gun industry sponsors any game companies/developers. 

It still stands because whether or not I buy a product doesn't correlate with whether I support random product placement of a brand.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 15, 2013)

This has gotten so fucktarded I think everyone at this point is starting to get confused. What the Hell man.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> But if you buy a game, you're supporting the company that made it unless otherwise stated.
> 
> As I've mentioned before, the way rights tend to work is either a company lends its rights to someone else for them to use their brand or whatever, or the person buys rights from a company to use their brand. But the rights holder only sees a one lump sum going in or out.
> 
> ...


I'm just gonna stick with that first line, because getting into the other lines would be making a direct circle towards the second line in my post on the bottom of page 2. 

I think that when you buy a game, you're supporting everyone that made it. It's just two opposing viewpoints-- at this point I don't think either one can be justified above the other.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

SirRob said:


> I think that when you buy a game, you're supporting everyone that made it.



Yes, you are. And licensed brands are generally not a part of the team that made the product. They are brands. Copyright holders. They do nothing to support the development of the product.


----------



## SirRob (Dec 15, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Yes, you are. And licensed brands are generally not a part of the team that made the product. They are brands. Copyright holders. They do nothing to support the development of the product.


It's just a matter of subjectivity, again. It's about who you consider to be involved in the making of the game. Technically, they are involved, because the product they created has a presence in the game, but you're also right that they are not part of the development team.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 15, 2013)

Antronach said:


> ...and perhaps horde money away like some anit-war miser. :l



Bank of the MattressÂâ„¢ - make sure it's the *right mattress*


----------



## Fernin (Dec 15, 2013)

This thread is just...Wow... I mean, I don't even honestly know what to say other than that the circular logic here is making me dizzy. @@


----------



## Runefox (Dec 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> This thread is just...Wow... I mean, I don't even honestly know what to say other than that the circular logic here is making me dizzy. @@



[video=youtube;9OVv-J-LXQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OVv-J-LXQU[/video]


----------



## Antronach (Dec 16, 2013)

I think the guy just found this video and wanted to talk about the topic matter endlessly because he wanted to beef up his post count feel like he was having a decent conversation with someone.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 16, 2013)

Antronach said:


> I think the guy just found this video and wanted to talk about the topic matter endlessly because he wanted to beef up his post count feel like he was having a decent conversation with someone.



I actually did watch that video. So what? I think this is a pretty big issue and I wanted to know what you guys think about that.
But I forgot that we can't have discussions about polititcs, religion and aparently guns here on FAF. My mistake, I regret making this thread now... Holy shit, what a fucking trainwreck...


----------



## SirRob (Dec 16, 2013)

Don't worry Captain, he was talking about me.


----------



## Inpw (Dec 16, 2013)

Aren't these the legal arms dealers? Not gonna lie but this thread is full of WTF. I really, Really, REALLY don't care if the weapons in games are based after the real deal and if those manufacturers gain a slight income for it. I don't even think managing directors in any of these companies consider the stats of this little funny money they gain in the entertainment industry compared to their actual profit. It's product placement and the game developers needs to abide by copyright.



Distorted said:


> I don't much like FPS type games. I can't really enjoy them. Though, the only problem I have with it are players who think they can do what they do in the game in real life. My brother once told me he played enough Call of Duty to know what to do in that kind of situation. Granted this is coming from someone who's never been in any kind of fight.



I've played FPS games since I was 10 years old and never thought I'd be able to do it in real life. Maybe because the stuff I played back when I had a vulnerable mind had a poly count of 50 or so.

No matter how realistic you might think the game is, here are some common factors.

The Trained soldier:

Dies... once, no retry in real life.

Feels pain, yeah pain seriously affects your abilities. Who knew..?

Eats, nutrition = energy just like I eat when playing a video game.

Gets tired, running at 15 km/h for 8 hours straight with heavy gear and ammo to carry through rugged environments. Yeah right. (Oh and stopping for 5 seconds doesn't magically make you feel like a million bucks either.)

Feels fear, Immanent pain, death and responsibilities does that to a person. 

Has emotion. Your friend just got killed next to you, who cares he wasn't a real person anyways just some AI code.

Oh yeah, Soldiers are heavily well trained marksmen... all of them... your enemy too.


----------



## Reykreyth (Dec 16, 2013)

Granted, you did start a thread with a ridiculously controversial topic. If you're not looking for a shitstorm, perhaps talk about something a bit more mild?


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 16, 2013)

I like guns. I like shooting guns. In real life.

But I don't like FPS games.

Am I doing it right?


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 16, 2013)

Guns kill people. Games don't.
If the companies get money from nonlethal activities I have no problem with that.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 16, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Guns kill people. Games don't.
> If the companies get money from nonlethal activities I have no problem with that.



But what about supporting the partnership between developers and companies that make a living with war by buying those games?

Also, I just made the same thread on a German gaming board. The reactions there are very different. The thread didn't get that many replies yet but those who did reply mentioned either the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting the arms industry... or not wanting to support yearly releases of games in which the Americans are always portrayed as the ultimate heroes X3


----------



## Inpw (Dec 16, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Guns kill people. Games don't.
> If the companies get money from nonlethal activities I have no problem with that.



Correction. People kill people. Guns just enable people to do it remotely... within line of sight.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But what about supporting the partnership between developers and companies that make a living with war by buying those games?
> 
> Also, I just made the same thread on a German gaming board. The reactions there are very different. The thread didn't get that many replies yet but those who did reply mentioned either the moral dilemma of indirectly supporting the arms industry... or not wanting to support yearly releases of games in which the Americans are always portrayed as the ultimate heroes X3


I understand the standpoint of the Germans and I approve of it. It is boring to see the Americans as heroes with blazing eagles soaring over their heads especially if you didn't really support it.
I don't mind indirectly supporting a company by bying a game that has a gun license from it. After all, I didn't buy a gun from them. As I said before, I dont mind a nonlethal approach. 
I don't have an issue with gun industry. It is possibly because I think of guns as hunting equipment primarily...I have a problem with American gun laws though.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I actually did watch that video. So what? *I think this is a pretty big issue and I wanted to know what you guys think about that.*
> But I forgot that we can't have discussions about polititcs, religion and aparently guns here on FAF. My mistake, I regret making this thread now... Holy shit, what a fucking trainwreck...



And you've had what we all think explained to you.

Answer: It's not a big issue.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 16, 2013)

Gibby said:


> And you've had what we all think explained to you.
> 
> Answer: It's not a big issue.


Some people value different things in a different manner in different places.
I'd reckon in Germany, supporting gun companies is seen in a wholly different light than in Americaland.

For another example, I live in Finland, I love my nature and if someone fucks it up I go berserk because I think it is a big issue, but elsewhere, like in highly populated areas nature is not thought of the same way and it's destruction is not a big issue.
's all regional yo. Just because most people on this forum think it's not a big issue, it doesn't mean it wasn't that for some.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2013)

The support of gun companies by games licenses is so marginal when compared with their military contracts etc that it's definitely not a big issue, even if you care about it a lot it's missing the real issue, which is administration. 

Harming our ecosystems _really is _demonstrably a big issue though, even if some of us don't care about it enough. :c


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The support of gun companies by games licenses is so marginal when compared with their military contracts etc that it's definitely not a big issue, even if you care about it a lot it's missing the real issue, which is administration.
> 
> Harming our ecosystems _really is _demonstrably a big issue though, even if some of us don't care about it enough. :c



The money aspect really is negligable. It's about what these companies do and whether you are willing to support that.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 16, 2013)

I honestly wonder why we even have military orientated games sometimes.

I enjoy them, but it all seems fishy to me.


----------



## Inpw (Dec 16, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> I honestly wonder why we even have military orientated games sometimes.
> 
> I enjoy them, but it all seems fishy to me.



For the love of God please don't entice some government conspiracy discussion.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 16, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> I honestly wonder why we even have military orientated games sometimes.
> 
> I enjoy them, but it all seems fishy to me.



Same reason why people have grown up playing Soldiers and Cops n Robbers or whatever in their parents' back gardens. 

Those kids have all grown up now and still enjoy war movies, and there's been demand for war-related fun for a very long time in the form of strategy table games by kids and adults alike, it's only logical that these war-themed strategy games extend to the computer gaming medium and also include computerised less-imaginary versions of Soldiers and Cops n Robbers or whatever.

It's because people are (and always have been) interested in the subject, so people interested in the subject make games and have fun with the subject, and then sell said games to other people who also happen to be interested in the subject.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The money aspect really is negligable. It's about what these companies do and whether you are willing to support that.



You have to think why the product placement exists in the first place. Is it just about advertising (which to the company who has the product yes) but it may be done to help offset costs in production, get something more authentic going in a game.

Transformers, obviously it couldn't just use fake cars for robots transforming. I suppose it could, but it was much better for the experience is to get car manufactures to pitch in actual cars. 

People notice and can get annoyed if products in modern day or even near future settings are just all fake. So if a company can score a license deal with companies to allow actual products to be featured then they're a bit better off. It's not like they're offering coupons for gun licenses  In some cases the reverse can happen like Mountain Dew or Doritos featuring Xbox products, or movies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You have to think why the product placement exists in the first place. Is it just about advertising (which to the company who has the product yes) but it may be done to help offset costs in production, get something more authentic going in a game.
> 
> Transformers, obviously it couldn't just use fake cars for robots transforming. I suppose it could, but it was much better for the experience is to get car manufactures to pitch in actual cars.
> 
> People notice and can get annoyed if products in modern day or even near future settings are just all fake. So if a company can score a license deal with companies to allow actual products to be featured then they're a bit better off. It's not like they're offering coupons for gun licenses  In some cases the reverse can happen like Mountain Dew or Doritos featuring Xbox products, or movies.



I am all for realism in games. I simply don't like the companies behind those guns and I don't want to have anything to do with them. I don't agree with their politics and how they essentially make a living with war. That is my issue here.
You don't have to work with these people for an immersive experience.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 16, 2013)

Accretion said:


> For the love of God please don't entice some government conspiracy discussion.



And cut my throat in the process?
Fuck no, that's one of the many things FAF cant handle.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 16, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> And cut my throat in the process?
> Fuck no, that's one of the many things FAF cant handle.



The idea that videogames are involved in a conspiracy theory is freaking retarded.

The closest you'll get is America's Army being used as a recruitment tool - and the developers were very open about it.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 16, 2013)

Gibby said:


> The idea that videogames are involved in a conspiracy theory is freaking retarded.
> 
> The closest you'll get is America's Army being used as a recruitment tool - and the developers were very open about it.


Man.

Gibby.

Didn't you know?

The illuminati makes all of our entertainment. They're like rock stars of creativity belting out hit after hit.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 16, 2013)

Gibby said:


> The idea that videogames are involved in a conspiracy theory is freaking retarded.
> 
> The closest you'll get is America's Army being used as a recruitment tool - and the developers were very open about it.



Yeah it is fucking retarded. But just because it doesn't sit right with me - it doesn't mean I am insinuating a conspiracy.

Eh, whatever...


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The money aspect really is negligable. It's about what these companies do and whether you are willing to support that.



Unintentional and inconsequential contribution doesn't equate to support. 

I might dislike tax evasion by large companies in the UK. Me ordering a starbucks wouldn't change any of that or invalidate my position. Any causal relation between me buying a coffee and starbucks paying their dues is tenuous beyond measurement.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I am all for realism in games. I simply don't like the companies behind those guns and I don't want to have anything to do with them. I don't agree with their politics and how they essentially make a living with war. That is my issue here.
> You don't have to work with these people for an immersive experience.



Hey CaptainCool, ever ridden in a motor vehicle in Germany with parts manufactured by Rhenmetall?  I just ask cause they make military hardware too, including the canon used on the Abrams and Leopard tanks. 

GERMAN CAR PARTS SUPPORTS WAR. D:


----------



## Nikolinni (Dec 16, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Hey CaptainCool, ever ridden in a motor vehicle in Germany with parts manufactured by Rhenmetall?  I just ask cause they make military hardware too, including the canon used on the Abrams and Leopard tanks.
> 
> GERMAN CAR PARTS SUPPORTS WAR. D:



Well that was something someone poked fun at too (Was it you or someone else?) about buying Texas Instrument Calculators, since TI makes weapons.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 16, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> GERMAN CAR PARTS SUPPORTS WAR. D:



Hugo Boss was a member of the Nazi party and was contracted to manufacture the uniforms used by the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS, and Hitlerjugend which is what brought the company up to great success.

The Volkswagen Beetle was named as such by Hitler.

Kodak fired all Jewish employees after one of Hitler's financial advisors suggested it.

Siemens created the gas chambers for the Jews and after the year 2000, tried to sell new gas ovens named "Zyklon".

Henry Ford is a god damned massive anti-semite AND war profiteer.

And more~


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 16, 2013)

Kodak actually ran a nuclear reactor in secret for 3 decades http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ret-nuclear-reactor-for-30-years-7754328.html


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 16, 2013)

In all you can pick and choose your battles in morality when it comes to companies, but in all honesty you're just shifting the goal post around for a "Feel good" "moral" victory.

So it's ok to endorse violence and sexualization/mistreatment of women "those feminists need to stfu"

"I don't want to support guns" but in getting the licenses and product placement it's really a precarious position since again people don't want to see "BFG 2000" all the time and see actual gun makers, so there's a bit of companies allowing the product placement for the added realism and avoided lawsuits if they do feature a gun that hits too close to intellectual property laws.

But people are still willing to buy video games with the practices of how people are paid or how people are treated for cheap labor which is an every day thing. Small things like people getting the trademarks to guns in the grand scheme of things, is far less worse than current labor practices which affect more people. But in the end what does it matter as long as we have access to computers, internet and can type out or moral objections easily and little consequence from the comfort of our own homes?


----------



## Runefox (Dec 16, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Hugo Boss was a member of the Nazi party and was contracted to manufacture the uniforms used by the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS, and Hitlerjugend which is what brought the company up to great success.


This is a huge reason why people are fascinated by Nazi fashion. They were like the fashion models of the evil empire world; Hugo Boss did a great job with that.



> And more~


Like Walt Disney being a massive anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer, and IBM selling computing machines to Nazi Germany... (And much of the US population of the day supporting Hitler prior to December 7, 1941)


----------



## Seekrit (Dec 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Kodak actually ran a nuclear reactor in secret for 3 decades http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ret-nuclear-reactor-for-30-years-7754328.html



why is this so cool ._.


----------



## CutoutF0x (Dec 22, 2013)

Even if we remove guns from the world, humanity will find another way to kill each other. Like Albert Einstein said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." I am not pro-gun nor anti-gun, I'm more in the middle. Guns are not sentient: they cannot think for themselves. As the cliche goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." In the hands of a hunter, a gun is a tool. In the hands of a robber/terrorist, a gun is a weapon of evil. In the hands of a police officer/counter-terrorist, a gun is a weapon of good. Guns mean that the weaker portion of humanity (those less able to defend themselves from stronger opponents) have a chance to survive, unlike medieval times where the strong survived. This is both good and bad, as it means humanity as a whole is weaker, as there is less natural selection, but humanity is starting to favour intelligence rather than raw strength, unlike the medieval times. Rather than going backwards and removing guns, we should be moving forwards and _replacing_ guns with non-lethal yet still effective weapons. We have started on this journey with peace-rays and stun guns, yet guns still have their place in humanity for the time being. 

To sum up, a sword is just as powerful, if not more powerful, than a gun. Your mind is more powerful than both. Of course, this whole thing is just my opinion, your opinion may differ, and that's fine. There are many arguments for and against guns, but it all boils down to a matter of opinion.


----------

