TenEightyOne Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I love racing games (my site, WorldLeagueRacing has run nearly 3,000 races in properly organised series) and I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen dev interviews saying that manufacturers were really nervous about how 'strong' their cars were perceived to be... in games or anywhere else. Fortunately for GTA it takes place in a parallel dimension where different marques and models exist - so it's not a problem This might be a good time for a Yob-Tub link; I don't know how to make the frame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz2000 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Why pay for licensing when: 1. It costs a lot of money. (sapping funds from production) 2. Manufacturers dont want people to see a lot of dameage to their cars. (taking away from the damage physics) 3. You can tell which each car is meant to be anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meson1 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Another thing to point out is that since GTA:IV the fidelity of the vehicle models has gotten really good. The high quality depictions make it pretty obvious what real life cars they are representing. Some of the models are so close to their real equivalents I think it's been good of the manufacturers to turn a blind eye. Certain fictional versions end up looking much better!!! The Serrano Sport from TBOGT is a fantastic looking thing. I wish they'd make a real life one. I know it's based on one of the Mercedes, but the Serrano version looks way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FortunateSon Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If it wasn't for him who had not, he who would had not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissaveroza Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Car manufacturers do not like their vehicles being portrayed in a bad light, it happened with Need for Speed, they made EA sign an agreement to limit the damage incurred onto their vehicles in games. Hence the damage limits in most vehicle simulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnorton Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Why doesn't R* buy the rights to use and make models for cars in the game?is it that costly? Racing game devs do it all the time Because that would ruin GTA. I'd hate to have real cars in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celticfang Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) Car manufacturers do not like their vehicles being portrayed in a bad light, it happened with Need for Speed, they made EA sign an agreement to limit the damage incurred onto their vehicles in games. Hence the damage limits in most vehicle simulations. That is standard though. Car makers dictate what is in the game in exchange for having their cars in the game. There was one car maker (BMW IIRC) that told a dev that they weren't allowing any smoke to be shown on their cars at all, so the devs had a dilemma, have the BMW in or remove all the smoke? They removed the BMW and kept the smoke. Would you rather have a RUF (since Porsche have an exclusive deal with EA /and/ Porsche go after modders now) instead of a Comet, but not be able to have the car explode when destroyed, or have a Merc that's a licensed car, but not be able to run over pedestrians? Those are the sort of things car makers regularly object to when it comes to licensing, they can and do demand whole chunks of the game are cut out to please them. EDIT: Saw a point about money. Ferrari costs seven figures to license, and that's without going into things like console exclusive cars (i.e. the 458 can't appear in any other Xbox game except FM4 until December 2012, there was a major uproar when Atari didn't tell people this and left an achievement in the release X350 copy of TDU2 that was glitched, they fixed it though), same for Lambo, then you get car makers not waning to have other car makers in the game. Edited November 23, 2012 by Celticfang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevechilds Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Car manufacturers do not like their vehicles being portrayed in a bad light, it happened with Need for Speed, they made EA sign an agreement to limit the damage incurred onto their vehicles in games. Hence the damage limits in most vehicle simulations. That is standard though. Car makers dictate what is in the game in exchange for having their cars in the game. There was one car maker (BMW IIRC) that told a dev that they weren't allowing any smoke to be shown on their cars at all, so the devs had a dilemma, have the BMW in or remove all the smoke? They removed the BMW and kept the smoke. Would you rather have a RUF (since Porsche have an exclusive deal with EA /and/ Porsche go after modders now) instead of a Comet, but not be able to have the car explode when destroyed, or have a Merc that's a licensed car, but not be able to run over pedestrians? Those are the sort of things car makers regularly object to when it comes to licensing, they can and do demand whole chunks of the game are cut out to please them. That porche/Ea deal has ended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celticfang Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Car manufacturers do not like their vehicles being portrayed in a bad light, it happened with Need for Speed, they made EA sign an agreement to limit the damage incurred onto their vehicles in games. Hence the damage limits in most vehicle simulations. That is standard though. Car makers dictate what is in the game in exchange for having their cars in the game. There was one car maker (BMW IIRC) that told a dev that they weren't allowing any smoke to be shown on their cars at all, so the devs had a dilemma, have the BMW in or remove all the smoke? They removed the BMW and kept the smoke. Would you rather have a RUF (since Porsche have an exclusive deal with EA /and/ Porsche go after modders now) instead of a Comet, but not be able to have the car explode when destroyed, or have a Merc that's a licensed car, but not be able to run over pedestrians? Those are the sort of things car makers regularly object to when it comes to licensing, they can and do demand whole chunks of the game are cut out to please them. That porche/Ea deal has ended Okay so now EA don't have the license, there's still this to consider... Porsche is still tied to one game maker and they've extended it by giving Automaniax the exclusive rights for an official game (hence extending their game exclusivity deal, just not with EA), then Automaniax goes and winds up in a lot of trouble for pretty much stealing an entire game engine. Okay it may not be EA but...Porsche are still in an exclusive license They also now have a history of going after modders, they forced Enduracers to shut down their planned Porsche Endurance mod when it was close to release and had pics and videos all over the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllThatJuice Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Well for starters GTA is a parody of real life and also because, which car manufacturer is going to allow their cars to be used in a game where youre going to be crashing, stealing, using them for drive bys and blowing them up?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFerOne Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Because: 1. It's cheaper to make knockoffs 2. Car manufacturers won't allow total destruction of their cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoumaker Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 R* like to create parodies of everything! Including cars, + GTA inst a racing game so why would they want to spend money licencing cars? It would be stupid not to licence cars in a game like NFS for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJasonGallant Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I like the parodys better That is actually well made, I don't see why change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceRay Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I don't think that Ford wants to see their brand new car run down dozens of pedestrians on the side walk. LAN could use real cars because the licences had expired for all those old 40s cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killahmatic Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'd hate to drive real brand cars. Thats what racing games are for. I prefer R*'s re-imagination of them. Not to mention Ford,Chevy,Dodge, etc wouldnt want to be apart of a game where you use cars as weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonnaenodaethat Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 GTA is in reality a Scottish pisstake on real life - why emulate when you can parody. Plus what would all the Forza / NFS modders do with their time - make models from scratch? Nikhilmao, TELEMUNDINI, evelpod666 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMAHAWKS Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Pretty stupid question. The entire GTA world is a parody of the United States. Nothing in it actually exists, besides the guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StickyWickett Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Everything's already been said really. I believe the main reason is that it's much cheaper and much more in-line with GTA's vision to make parodies. The claim that car manufacturers do not want to be associated with GTA is not universal though: Audi's twitter comment on the original GTA V trailer Audi seems to be a pure bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumName Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Because it's cheaper to not and adds hardly anything to the game. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbassbuffet Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 because grand theft auto is the simulation of a dystopian society heavily based off of U.S. Culture. that's why random pedestrians will drag another person out of a vehicle and beat the hell out of them with a baseball bat, and that's why no one has a problem with brand names like Autoeroticar / Pißwasser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotusRIP Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Simple answer. Parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Why would Rockstar pay for something worthless? That anybody thinks the game would be better with real brands suggests that commercialism has made some people feel uncomfortable with a depiction of a world that lacks the endorsement of the entities whose control of society we approve of. In a way, criticizing Rockstar for rejecting outside advertising and product placement (other than of music, of course) is just another way of accusing them of making a video game that's antisocial, even if the accuser doesn't realize that's what their complaint really means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawlzmachine1989 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Because the brands are expensive and they are considered those as product placements. I'm not paying Mickey D's to get their restaurants into my video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerdude Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 1 word. Parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivaG Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 PARODY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTASeriesFan Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 GTA Is A PARODY Of The Real World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackass2009 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 becouze they are pigs who have bunch of money and want to get more and more instead of spending some for stuff like this for players to feel more comfortible. Are you Zee's bastard child? On Topic: Like everyone else is saying: The names are the subject of... wait for it... almost there... PARODIES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizNitz Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 1. Because Gta is ment to be a parody of American. 2. Some car brands would make them have damage limitations. 3. Some car brands don't want to be involved with a game like gta with all the violence, sex,adult themes, etc. 4. Alike no.1 rockstar wouldn't really be able to make fun of the cars through adverts and stuff. 5. Lastly the cost of getting car brands to have their cars featured in-game and having them to sign contracts. It's just not worth the trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyth Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 More like GTA doesn't use real-life brands. GTA is all about paraodies which is stated a bunch of times in this thread. In games like L.A. Noire theyhave used real cars since they used real places. In GTA they have fake companies, fake cities, etc. Why mess up the pattern with real cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuSsIeThUnDeR36 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Do you understand how costly it would be to buy the rights to reproduce real time vehicles from car manufacturers? Ain't gonna happen in gta ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now