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...

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by Kupsised

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...

Interestingly, both Oleg and Luthier have said at different times that Grumman initiated their legal action before Pacific Fighters was ready for release. That would mean that the foolishly applied text on the box art would not have been seen at the time that NG let loose their lawyers.

[GF_Mastiff]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

What's even more outrageous is that from WWII to the present day all of these US military aircraft have been 100% taxpayer funded. The depiction of them being ground for NG, Lockheed, or GE getting money is ludicrous! If anyone should be getting that "fee" it should be the US taxpayers. 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.

Then again, the companies that cater to the US military are among the greediest most corrupt companies out there, and have no qualms with wasting billions of dollars of other people's money, or trying to squeeze a few extra dimes out of some little operation.

that's why their paying there taxpayer loans back fast, so we can't use the taxpayer owend products. lol

[Thee_oddball]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

... very interesting, here :

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthre...f=59&t=1028359

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes...licopter-maker



I do hope EA will win, so perhaps we will see some Grumman aircrafts in this game !!!

my god.... doing business in America is getting more and more like running through a minefield blindfolded and wearing big red floppy clown shoes....

[ElAurens]

Even if EA wins, we will never have NG aircraft in a Maddox Games simulation, because Maddox Games signed a legally binding settlement, prohibiting them from doing so without paying huge royalties. This has been covered many times.

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Even if EA wins, we will never have NG aircraft in a Maddox Games simulation, because Maddox Games signed a legally binding settlement, prohibiting them from doing so without paying huge royalties. This has been covered many times.

Obligatory link: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...49&postcount=9