About legal problems of showing in-game real aircraft...

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

There's a reason why GM, Ford, Porsche, etc, get to charge for games to use their products. Because they footed the bill to make them! Hell, a lot of companies push their products to be in films (see any Michael Bay movie) to get free advertising. Seeing how large the gaming market is (bigger than the movie industry) you'd think they'd be thrilled to have their products featured in a game.

You're right about the tax payers, but this is a bit different in that car companies (and others) pay to/give away for free in order to have their products in films because they're advertising them to potential consumers who might either buy that car or at least a car made by them, but in the case of BF3 I don't think the market for a Super Hornet is the average gamer, no matter how much the average gamer wishes it were It isn't product placement in the way that Michael Bay movies are because it would even be illegal to sell a Hornet or any other aircraft to 99.99% of all the people who play battlefield (I'm giving the .01% as I'm going to assume that somewhere some head of state or minister of defence might actually play battlefield), even if they could afford it, which again 99.99% of people couldn't even if it were legal.

It was interesting to see what Jaws posted there though. I never saw that as I got pacific fighters through a fully merged 1946 so never saw the box art. Someone really dropped the ball there...