Electronic Arts is distancing itself from the gun industry, by cutting ties with gun manufacturers over licensed weaponry in its games -- although the publisher says it will continue to feature branded guns without a license.
EA has previously licensed weapons from gun manufacturers like McMillan Group International in past first-person shooter titles, including Medal of Honor: Warfighter.
However, speaking to Reuters, EA president Frank Gibeau says that his company will no longer give money to gun companies in exchange for a license to use branded weapons in its games.
Yet EA will continue to show branded weapons in its games regardless. "We're telling a story and we have a point of view," Gibeau explained. "A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt,' for example."
The company says it is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use these weapon-based trademarks without permission in its upcoming shooter games.
This move follows recent comments from the National Rifle Association, blaming the video game industry for elevated acts of gun violence in the U.S. -- although EA says that this latest decision has nothing to do with the NRA comments.
The question of whether EA will get away with it is up in the air thus far. Reuters was told by legal experts that there hasn't been a single case where a gun company has sued a video game studio for using branded guns without a license.
However, there is currently a lawsuit in progress in which an aircraft maker says that EA depicted its helicopters in the Battlefield series without permission. This particular case will go to trial in June.
UPDATE: Comments from an EA spokesperson to Ars Technica clarified that EA actually has never paid gun manufacturers to license. The relationship between EA and gun makers was limited to a 2012 Medal of Honor: Warfighter marketing campaign that had the weapons manufacturers contribute money to veterans' charities. EA won't be doing that kind of partnership again.
"Zero money from the manufacturers ever went to EA -- all money went directly to the veterans' charity," said an EA spokesperson.
I'd bet if they model the guns & use the names, they should expect a lawsuit.
The gun companies have lawyers who are already being paid and i'd expect they want to get thier moneys worth from paying them.
Granted imo they should let developers use the names for the free advertisement.
Going after video game companies for advertising their products would be like biting the hand that feeds them. They do that enough when they blame violence on video games that promote their products. If we just stopped using their guns in games altogether then who would they use next as their patsy?
I had always assumed the relationship was like the one between Hollywood and cigarette manufacturers in the 20th Century, where the cig companies paid Hollywood to put a cigarette in everyone's hand. The gun lobby has really had it good.
A little know Gangsta Rap Group know as Smif-N-Wessun were sued with a cease and desist order over their group name by the Smith & Wesson firearms company. They never fought the suit and changes their name. So yeah gun companies will sue. It's not beyond them not to do so.
The more I think about this, the worse it gets. How many years has this been going on? This means that every time a gamer pays for one of these games, that some of that money goes to fund the gun industry and their lobbyists in Washington. This means that our actions in funding these games also funds one of the worst public health threats facing this nation. If anti-gun activists needed a "smoking gun" (pardon the pun) that proved that violent video games (at least this genre of them) increase mortality rates in the US, they need look no further. EA did the right thing here and I hope other companies follow suit.
I am trying to remember, but I can't seem to quite remember it right. I am under the impression that there was a recent lawsuit ruling to gives some kind of strength to EA's free speech claim in ending licensing of gun likenesses.
Found the lawsuit I was thinking of. EA is seeking declaratory judgement that its use of Textron helicopters in its video games is not infringement but protected by the 1st amendment.
'EA president Frank Gibeau says that his company will no longer give money to gun companies in exchange for a license to use branded weapons in its games.'
But they won't stop using the weapons in the games. They're keeping the gun porn. This sounds more like 'we want to keep all the money' than an ethical stand.
I tend to believe that they are doing everything they can to provide a positive and maximized revenue forecast for their shareholders and the markets due to the negative image Simcity brought. Between the replacement of upper management, the closing of offices/studios, etc., they can somewhat easily shift their projections to be something much rosier than they otherwise would have been.
Not paying for licenses is another line in a spreadsheet of "saved money here" items.
Couple that with the recent Star Wars announcement, and I'm thinking there's going to be a bit of a run on EA stock.
I'm also interested to see if they will follow the same philosophy with their racing games, and stop licensing car marques in things like Need For Speed.
@Edge: I wouldn't call including generic versions of the now required guns (mid-range assault rifle, close-up auto, 9mm or similar pistol, revolver, sniper rifle, you know the drill) gun porn either, but games that care enough to give specific make and model seem to put a lot of effort into making sure the modeling, animations, and sound are perfect as well. Watch the previews as the devs enthuse about how many polys the guns have and how meaty it feels in your virtual hands. EA certainly falls in this category for its big budget shooters. And of course, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_%28video_game%29
So does this mean Konami can go ahead and put the Premier League in Pro Evolution Soccer? I mean, licensing doesn't matter, right EA?
I agree with others that it's free advertising, but using real-life gun models and names does add commercial value to the game (I'm sure many of us can think of someone who'd buy one shooter over another just because "It has real guns!!!" I certainly can.) The ethical stand would be to stop using real-life weapons, period. It doesn't seem like that's EA's plan.
I can guarantee you that our company will immediately file injunctions against EA for any infringement of any trademarks we currently hold under license for this catagory-- which is many. This plan will look good on their annual report, but backfire on them big time. We have protected our licensed trademarks for the last 20 years, and have never lost a single case in 237 cases. If EA believes they are too big to live within the law, perhaps they have not come against a company like Cybergun.
I totally agree with this, game developers shouldn't have to pay gun companies for using weapons that don't even behave the same and even if they did, it's a fictive work.
When someone makes a movie, does he have to pay every architect that made a building in a city? Pay for every trash can in the street, cars, etc.? For the clothes that people are wearing?
To pay licenses for weapons is a big fat joke.
Let's say that my job is to guide people through visualization and meditation sessions in which I tell them to drive X car to a field, take X weapon, shoot and clear his mind from all the anger he accumulated. Would it make any sense for me to pay a license for X weapon? No. If an artist on the street draws an AK-47, does he have to pay a license? No.
And that's no different from a materialized completely fictive video game.
If you make a racing game, you have to license cars.
That should apply to guns as well. I think gun manufacturers just don't care. Just like when video games first made flight sims, plane manufacturers didn't care, but later on planes and such had to be licensed.
There is a big difference between fictive games such as Call of Duty or Battlefield VS UFC, boxing, wrestling, hockey, soccer, basketball or racing games.
Players buy UFC games for the real life representation of each fighter.
Players don't buy Call of Duty for the Ak-47, but they might expect some weapons to behave in a certain way. And usually, the weapons absolutely do not behave at all like in real life. So in this case, the term Ak-47 doesn't mean that the player will play with an actual AK-47. Instead, such name is a reference point that helps players to understand that the weapon might be accurate on the first shot and innacurate in full fire while the M4 would be accurate with manually controlled bursts, etc. If those players were to play a sci-fi game with unrealistic weapon model and strange weapon names, players would quickly tell their friend what weapon behaves ''like'' an Ak-47 that we know usually means accurate first shot, innacurate in full fire, etc.
When the name or brand sells the game, I agree... game devs should pay for lisences, but not for fictive works such as CoD, Battlefield or similar fictive games that absolutely do not attempt to copy real life. The difference here is that it makes sense to pay for a lisence if one of the playable character in your game is Batman. But if in your game, one character in the dialogues says ''Hey you look like Batman!'', then I don't think it makes any sense to pay for a lisence, because that belongs to general culture and not a brand.
Apparently, EA has never paid gun manufacturers to license their guns. So this is basically like someone who's never smoked publicly declaring that they're giving up smoking.
Simon, thank you for clarifying this situation. It seems the net result of this is going to be a heightened scrutiny of the friendship between the interactive media industry and the arms industry.
But honestly, what friendship? Usually people don't pay for friendship. As some people suggested earlier, games should offer free advertisement for guns. A gamer would be such a fan of X gun that he decided to purchase one for real.
Here, firearms manufacturers are strictly trying to make money on the back of game developers producing fictive experiences. Instead, firearms manufacturers should pay EA for promoting their guns, because the dev team could use any fictive name at any time.
I enjoyed coming to this article after everyone had made their very passionate and far reaching conclusions based on something false. Thanks.
@Christian
I have never met anyone who bought a gun after using it in a game. I have known people who rented them at the range, but to spend the several hundred to several thousand dollars to own that gun is nuts. Aside from the challenges of getting your hands on most of the weapons in those games. I can't just go out and buy myself a M60 if I want one, nor will I easily be getting a grenade launcher in civilian life. It's a hassle, and certainly not an impulse buy.
Thanks for the info. It seems Gamasutra has updated the headline, as well. The entire licensing and patent laws really need an overhaul.
I don't see how guns are any different from cars as far as being licensed. You buy the game to play into a fantasy--the fantasy of being a soldier, or the fantasy of being a racer. The cars and guns are details--they're not pivotal to the experience, but they make it more authentic and fulfilling. They could easily be replaced by fictional counterparts, at the expense of subtracting from the realism. We can make a case that we're telling a story and the guns are a detail that's part of that story; however, the same case can be made for a racing game and its cars.
I can understand the reasoning for not being able to use faces and likenesses (other than for purposes protected by the First Amendment), but it seems like all the objects should fall under the same laws. That is, we either don't need to license any of them or we legally need to license all of them. I suspect it is the latter, and--as others have suggested--it's merely in the best interest of manufactures not to challenge it (though it seems to me it'd be in the best interest of car manufacturers not to challenge the inclusion of their cars in a racing game that makes them look powerful and sexy). Any lawyers around to clarify? I'd be interested to hear a more educated take on the whole thing.
I'm fairly certain if the equipment has a designation from the armed forces you can use that instead and dodge any potential licensing fees. Found the reference at this article http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms- manufacturers from back in Jan 2013 when someone who worked on Operation Flashpoint mentioned doing so.
The gun companies have lawyers who are already being paid and i'd expect they want to get thier moneys worth from paying them.
Granted imo they should let developers use the names for the free advertisement.
I had always assumed the relationship was like the one between Hollywood and cigarette manufacturers in the 20th Century, where the cig companies paid Hollywood to put a cigarette in everyone's hand. The gun lobby has really had it good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIHH0XEs6E
http://www.patentarcade.com/2012/07/new-cases-electronic-arts-inc- v-textron.html
From what I can find, this case is not settled yet. But is shows that this has been something EA has been actively contemplating for quite some time.
But they won't stop using the weapons in the games. They're keeping the gun porn. This sounds more like 'we want to keep all the money' than an ethical stand.
Not paying for licenses is another line in a spreadsheet of "saved money here" items.
Couple that with the recent Star Wars announcement, and I'm thinking there's going to be a bit of a run on EA stock.
I'm also interested to see if they will follow the same philosophy with their racing games, and stop licensing car marques in things like Need For Speed.
I agree with others that it's free advertising, but using real-life gun models and names does add commercial value to the game (I'm sure many of us can think of someone who'd buy one shooter over another just because "It has real guns!!!" I certainly can.) The ethical stand would be to stop using real-life weapons, period. It doesn't seem like that's EA's plan.
When someone makes a movie, does he have to pay every architect that made a building in a city? Pay for every trash can in the street, cars, etc.? For the clothes that people are wearing?
To pay licenses for weapons is a big fat joke.
Let's say that my job is to guide people through visualization and meditation sessions in which I tell them to drive X car to a field, take X weapon, shoot and clear his mind from all the anger he accumulated. Would it make any sense for me to pay a license for X weapon? No. If an artist on the street draws an AK-47, does he have to pay a license? No.
And that's no different from a materialized completely fictive video game.
I bet EA will do the same for car licenses...
That should apply to guns as well. I think gun manufacturers just don't care. Just like when video games first made flight sims, plane manufacturers didn't care, but later on planes and such had to be licensed.
Players buy UFC games for the real life representation of each fighter.
Players don't buy Call of Duty for the Ak-47, but they might expect some weapons to behave in a certain way. And usually, the weapons absolutely do not behave at all like in real life. So in this case, the term Ak-47 doesn't mean that the player will play with an actual AK-47. Instead, such name is a reference point that helps players to understand that the weapon might be accurate on the first shot and innacurate in full fire while the M4 would be accurate with manually controlled bursts, etc. If those players were to play a sci-fi game with unrealistic weapon model and strange weapon names, players would quickly tell their friend what weapon behaves ''like'' an Ak-47 that we know usually means accurate first shot, innacurate in full fire, etc.
When the name or brand sells the game, I agree... game devs should pay for lisences, but not for fictive works such as CoD, Battlefield or similar fictive games that absolutely do not attempt to copy real life. The difference here is that it makes sense to pay for a lisence if one of the playable character in your game is Batman. But if in your game, one character in the dialogues says ''Hey you look like Batman!'', then I don't think it makes any sense to pay for a lisence, because that belongs to general culture and not a brand.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/no-ea-wont-license-guns-in-its-2013-games-
but-it-never-has/
Here, firearms manufacturers are strictly trying to make money on the back of game developers producing fictive experiences. Instead, firearms manufacturers should pay EA for promoting their guns, because the dev team could use any fictive name at any time.
@Christian
I have never met anyone who bought a gun after using it in a game. I have known people who rented them at the range, but to spend the several hundred to several thousand dollars to own that gun is nuts. Aside from the challenges of getting your hands on most of the weapons in those games. I can't just go out and buy myself a M60 if I want one, nor will I easily be getting a grenade launcher in civilian life. It's a hassle, and certainly not an impulse buy.
I don't see how guns are any different from cars as far as being licensed. You buy the game to play into a fantasy--the fantasy of being a soldier, or the fantasy of being a racer. The cars and guns are details--they're not pivotal to the experience, but they make it more authentic and fulfilling. They could easily be replaced by fictional counterparts, at the expense of subtracting from the realism. We can make a case that we're telling a story and the guns are a detail that's part of that story; however, the same case can be made for a racing game and its cars.
I can understand the reasoning for not being able to use faces and likenesses (other than for purposes protected by the First Amendment), but it seems like all the objects should fall under the same laws. That is, we either don't need to license any of them or we legally need to license all of them. I suspect it is the latter, and--as others have suggested--it's merely in the best interest of manufactures not to challenge it (though it seems to me it'd be in the best interest of car manufacturers not to challenge the inclusion of their cars in a racing game that makes them look powerful and sexy). Any lawyers around to clarify? I'd be interested to hear a more educated take on the whole thing.
manufacturers from back in Jan 2013 when someone who worked on Operation Flashpoint mentioned doing so.