Topsy turvy lisencing issues...
by Jason Farmer · in General Discussion · 12/23/2005 (3:40 am) · 9 replies
First of all may I say, this is not about a software or Torque lisencing issue.
As game developers strive to produce more and more realistic environments for players to kill each-other in, artists often have to display a level of creativity beyond those of the designers of real items the artists are trying to mimic. Every cup and saucer, ever car, every door has to be carefully created.
Consoles and PC's are becoming more and more powerful and storage space and poly counts are less of an issue than they once were. With higher resolutions possible and higher poly counts, things are easily recognisable as a real object or a generic facimile made to look similar to a real thing without stepping on someone's copytright. Generic cars are instantly recognisable in games poking a finger into the eye of the player and damaging the immersion. People see brand name cars all the time and to walk your player down a street filled with generic close copies is obvious. People don't use real car images because they have to be licensed and that is expensive.
I'd like to see a situation where the companies who own the IP of the objects we try to mimic, produce the models for us. The models would be perfect reprisentations of their actual products. Real objects that exist in the real world.
Imagine the situation.
You're a player running down a busy city street populate with Fords and BMW's, you enter a building to find people wearing gucci suits or enter a home to find a lot of Ikea furniture. The individual models not made by a modeller trying to reproduce something similar but by the companies themselves. Ikea has a massive catalogue of furniture. A lot of which could be easily slotted together to form an office mission or furnish a home realistically. It would be a big advertisment for Ikea. Other furniture companies could do the same.
If Ford, BMW or Honda produced in game models of their cars, these would be the cars seen by the gamer. Pretty soon other car companies would start producing in game models to get in on the act. Afterall, would you want your cars excluded from some free advertising? The cars would look real and the car companies could possibly showcase their new models.
I think this would be a massive advantage for the indi developer. They'd spend less time making mission nik-naks and more time making missions and coding. The player would immediately feel at home because the objects around him/her are instantly recognisable.
Why is this situation impossible at the moment? Why do we have to pay for the privilege of using the image of a companies products. Surely it's in their best interests to make the models for us.
Just a thought....
As game developers strive to produce more and more realistic environments for players to kill each-other in, artists often have to display a level of creativity beyond those of the designers of real items the artists are trying to mimic. Every cup and saucer, ever car, every door has to be carefully created.
Consoles and PC's are becoming more and more powerful and storage space and poly counts are less of an issue than they once were. With higher resolutions possible and higher poly counts, things are easily recognisable as a real object or a generic facimile made to look similar to a real thing without stepping on someone's copytright. Generic cars are instantly recognisable in games poking a finger into the eye of the player and damaging the immersion. People see brand name cars all the time and to walk your player down a street filled with generic close copies is obvious. People don't use real car images because they have to be licensed and that is expensive.
I'd like to see a situation where the companies who own the IP of the objects we try to mimic, produce the models for us. The models would be perfect reprisentations of their actual products. Real objects that exist in the real world.
Imagine the situation.
You're a player running down a busy city street populate with Fords and BMW's, you enter a building to find people wearing gucci suits or enter a home to find a lot of Ikea furniture. The individual models not made by a modeller trying to reproduce something similar but by the companies themselves. Ikea has a massive catalogue of furniture. A lot of which could be easily slotted together to form an office mission or furnish a home realistically. It would be a big advertisment for Ikea. Other furniture companies could do the same.
If Ford, BMW or Honda produced in game models of their cars, these would be the cars seen by the gamer. Pretty soon other car companies would start producing in game models to get in on the act. Afterall, would you want your cars excluded from some free advertising? The cars would look real and the car companies could possibly showcase their new models.
I think this would be a massive advantage for the indi developer. They'd spend less time making mission nik-naks and more time making missions and coding. The player would immediately feel at home because the objects around him/her are instantly recognisable.
Why is this situation impossible at the moment? Why do we have to pay for the privilege of using the image of a companies products. Surely it's in their best interests to make the models for us.
Just a thought....
#2
It seems that with the power of machines increasing, the demand for content will soon outstrip the resources of all but the biggest studios. One way to combat that would be to get the resources from the companies themselves.
But of course the legal issues would make the idea impossible. Afterall, what's to stop someone making a game where all Fords & BMW's explode on contact and all Volvo's survive.. Companies might be concerned about their image being tarnished.
Also financial issues, companies get money to license their images under strict rules. This situation could exist for an elite set of models. The best sports cars etc..
These modesl already exist in electronic format in one form or another. Shouldn't be too much work to convert them to a format like Maya or 3D Studio or a common format yet to be invented which guarentees scale and minimises the abilty to meddle with the models. Perhaps this common format would take care of required detail levels and so on.. a common license would say that the models need to be shipped as is, no derived works...
I don't know. But something is going to change in the future.. it has to.
I reckon we'll see a wma style format for 3D models.
12/23/2005 (5:05 am)
Well, product placement in movies goes to show the lengths some companies will go to give their products additional exposure.. Concept Lexus in Minority Report for example. Lexus would have paid to get their brand name into the movie.It seems that with the power of machines increasing, the demand for content will soon outstrip the resources of all but the biggest studios. One way to combat that would be to get the resources from the companies themselves.
But of course the legal issues would make the idea impossible. Afterall, what's to stop someone making a game where all Fords & BMW's explode on contact and all Volvo's survive.. Companies might be concerned about their image being tarnished.
Also financial issues, companies get money to license their images under strict rules. This situation could exist for an elite set of models. The best sports cars etc..
These modesl already exist in electronic format in one form or another. Shouldn't be too much work to convert them to a format like Maya or 3D Studio or a common format yet to be invented which guarentees scale and minimises the abilty to meddle with the models. Perhaps this common format would take care of required detail levels and so on.. a common license would say that the models need to be shipped as is, no derived works...
I don't know. But something is going to change in the future.. it has to.
I reckon we'll see a wma style format for 3D models.
#3
As it stands now, very likely you would get sued just for dropping the name.
I think this may be why all of Stephen Kings characters seem to drink "Nozola" rather than Coke or Pepsi.
Anyways, I really doubt any company will make their brand freely available to you, just for "extra exposure". When a brand is ubiquitous, extra exposure tends to mean very little. Product placement in Movies and TV notwithstanding.
12/23/2005 (5:14 am)
I imagine if this were a burdgeoning market as it were, we would be seeing cans of Coke in WoW, and maybe a family of Shoe Building Gnomes called the "Gucci's"As it stands now, very likely you would get sued just for dropping the name.
I think this may be why all of Stephen Kings characters seem to drink "Nozola" rather than Coke or Pepsi.
Anyways, I really doubt any company will make their brand freely available to you, just for "extra exposure". When a brand is ubiquitous, extra exposure tends to mean very little. Product placement in Movies and TV notwithstanding.
#4
Guess we agree the idea is impossible, although it looks like we differ on some of the reasons. I see no more need to discuss the points if we both agree its impossible.
I do have one last question though,
What do you mean by this statement?
12/23/2005 (5:35 am)
Jason,Quote:
legal issues would make the idea impossible
Guess we agree the idea is impossible, although it looks like we differ on some of the reasons. I see no more need to discuss the points if we both agree its impossible.
I do have one last question though,
Quote:
I don't know. But something is going to change in the future.. it has to.
What do you mean by this statement?
#5
People will come to expect the level of interesting interactable scenery to increase.
Gone are the days when a plain Quake map with low poly monsters was exciting. Now we need all manner of realistic details to keep the player believing... and more importantly, buying.
Either something happens to help us to generate content like that, we buy in prefabricated content at a resonable cost to free up some of the art budget for the real tasks of creating the play area..
..or we are stuck with having to either spend an incredible amount of time just creating the missions and increasing the chances of the game failing to be completed. Or we write tetris clones and platform games, stuck at a point we can never go beyond because of the investment needed to get there.
ok, an over exageration..
But if pre-licensed, pre-fabricated content existed by the companies who make their real life counterparts, then our job would be easier. We'd be able to make believable worlds populated with realistig everyday items.
In any case, we will have to rely more and more on external art resources to be competetive.
12/23/2005 (5:53 am)
What I mean is there will have to be some sort of advancement above what exists currently for smaller companies to survive in a detail rich environment. How many hobbyists or indi studios can make something on a par with the level of detail in something like Doom3 or Half life2 and they're just the beginning.People will come to expect the level of interesting interactable scenery to increase.
Gone are the days when a plain Quake map with low poly monsters was exciting. Now we need all manner of realistic details to keep the player believing... and more importantly, buying.
Either something happens to help us to generate content like that, we buy in prefabricated content at a resonable cost to free up some of the art budget for the real tasks of creating the play area..
..or we are stuck with having to either spend an incredible amount of time just creating the missions and increasing the chances of the game failing to be completed. Or we write tetris clones and platform games, stuck at a point we can never go beyond because of the investment needed to get there.
ok, an over exageration..
But if pre-licensed, pre-fabricated content existed by the companies who make their real life counterparts, then our job would be easier. We'd be able to make believable worlds populated with realistig everyday items.
In any case, we will have to rely more and more on external art resources to be competetive.
#6
That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.
Dan
12/23/2005 (6:02 am)
Jason,That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.
Dan
#7
IMHO, it is completely possible for any indie developer with enough talent and technology to create something as detailed as HL2.
12/23/2005 (9:57 pm)
Half Life 2 wasn't that detailed, they just had very good shader artists.IMHO, it is completely possible for any indie developer with enough talent and technology to create something as detailed as HL2.
#9
1. In a movie, the product can be displayed in the best possible light and approved beforehand. In a game, this is generally more difficult/impossible, and may even negatively impact the game play. For example, in Gran Turismo, the cars don't suffer any visible damage - AFAIK this is because it was a condition of the car makers that their cars look perfect all the time.
2. Many games are set in fantasy environments where it would be jarring to see real-world objects. Product placement is simply inappropriate for these games.
3. The game development community has not always approached companies for product placement, or, if they have, they approach as the supplicant. Consequently businesses don't perceive a market in placing their products in games.
4. Games based on movies and tv shows are often closely tied to the original franchise. More recently with games based on movies, it's become possible for the movie studios to share art assets that are useful for games. The Star Wars franchise springs to mind; however, this is an instance where the product (the Star Wars movies) and the game (pick your favorite Star Wars game) share the same goals - the promotion of an entire brand. It's not the same as trying to create your own brand with your game and putting someone else's brand inside it for advertising.
People often compare the game industry to the movie industry. Personally, I think it has more in common with the music industry. Game designers are often like rock stars who see their game as an art form and refuse it see it sullied by corporate greed. They see product placement as "selling out". Gamers appreciate this sentiment and sometimes reward it with their dollars. Other times they just buy the latest Shreck title.
I could go on, but this topic has already been gone over in many other forums. I suppose the real question you should ask yourself is "why do I want IKEA furniture in my game when I could have some funky furniture of my own design?". And if you really want to go the product placement route, then you should approach IKEA yourself. Who knows, you might get an exclusive contract!
12/29/2005 (10:56 am)
Plenty of companies allow their products to be used inside games - just look at titles such as Gran Turismo, or any of the slew of games based on movies and tv shows. It's true that product placement in games hasn't gone as far as it has in movies, but there are good reasons for this:1. In a movie, the product can be displayed in the best possible light and approved beforehand. In a game, this is generally more difficult/impossible, and may even negatively impact the game play. For example, in Gran Turismo, the cars don't suffer any visible damage - AFAIK this is because it was a condition of the car makers that their cars look perfect all the time.
2. Many games are set in fantasy environments where it would be jarring to see real-world objects. Product placement is simply inappropriate for these games.
3. The game development community has not always approached companies for product placement, or, if they have, they approach as the supplicant. Consequently businesses don't perceive a market in placing their products in games.
4. Games based on movies and tv shows are often closely tied to the original franchise. More recently with games based on movies, it's become possible for the movie studios to share art assets that are useful for games. The Star Wars franchise springs to mind; however, this is an instance where the product (the Star Wars movies) and the game (pick your favorite Star Wars game) share the same goals - the promotion of an entire brand. It's not the same as trying to create your own brand with your game and putting someone else's brand inside it for advertising.
People often compare the game industry to the movie industry. Personally, I think it has more in common with the music industry. Game designers are often like rock stars who see their game as an art form and refuse it see it sullied by corporate greed. They see product placement as "selling out". Gamers appreciate this sentiment and sometimes reward it with their dollars. Other times they just buy the latest Shreck title.
I could go on, but this topic has already been gone over in many other forums. I suppose the real question you should ask yourself is "why do I want IKEA furniture in my game when I could have some funky furniture of my own design?". And if you really want to go the product placement route, then you should approach IKEA yourself. Who knows, you might get an exclusive contract!
Torque Owner Dan -
1 - If the companies have to create the models for your game its not "free advertising". At the very least there is the cost of creating the models and answering questions on "why can't I get your model to work". Yes even if you give something away for free people want support. I know. I have given SW I created away for free and I get e-mails asking for support (mostly wanting upgrades. It to do something new). Glad I don't have my own SW company or I would be worried about getting a bad or unfriendly reputation when I say "sorry I don't have time to work on it right now."
2 - The best advertising is directed at someone who would be looking to purchase the said item.
3 - You want your product shown in the best light. As a result you will want to have some control over how its shown in a game.
4 - Models poly count, format, etc are often very game specific. For example, do you want to be able to get in the cars or have no interior details but have the outside be a very high poly count version? Do you want to animate the car wheels or is it just a back ground model?
Because of the above reasons, I don't think it is in their best interests to make models for you.
Just my thoughts. If you can get someone to create models for your for free, I am all for that though :-)