New Video Games/ Movies

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

You said it, CoD and Battlefield introduces these products to an entire generation of impressionable consumers. Companies pay for product placement and ads in games like Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, why should it be any different with guns? Why should Activision, and by extension, we the consumers, have to pay for the privilege of seeing the Remington script plastered on a few guns? Jeep pays for their product to be in CoD, why not Remington?

Well, think of it in terms of cars, which have been doing this kind of thing for years. A game company goes to Ferrari and says "we'd like to put an Enzo in our new game." Now, who is asking who for a favour here?

1. Most of the people who buy the game are not going to be able to buy a Ferrari.
2. The game designers benefit from the Ferrari being in the game because people want to drive one.
3. Spreading brand recognition among people who cannot or will not buy their product does not actually benefit Ferrari.

Therefore, it's the game designers who stand to gain most, so Ferrari is going to ask them for money because they're not a charity and want to get something out of the deal. This goes even more for flight sims, since nobody who plays Ace Combat is going to go to Sukhoi and order an Su-37.

With gun companies, you have to remember that their potential market is:

1. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of guns.
2. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of that specific gun (so that's all the NFA guns gone for a start).
3. People who are in a position to buy that specific gun and would not have done so without seeing it in the game.

That, realistically speaking, isn't all that many people. In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do. For the most part, the guns the designers request are going to already be big-name "cool" weapons because otherwise the designers themselves wouldn't have heard of them, so the brand recognition argument is also pretty dubious.

Bear in mind car companies have been doing exactly what he talks about in the video for decades, and to a far greater extent than Barrett dictating that they won't let you put the M107 in your game if it sucks. I remember the first time I heard of that was back in 1993 with Jaguar XJ220 for the Amiga, where the game only showed the car stopping when it hit obstacles, because Jaguar had said that they would not allow it to be shown crashing or being damaged in any way.

[The Wierd It]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do.

Probably explains why gun companies are starting to license their trademarks to airsoft manufacturers.

[funkychinaman]

http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/micha...rmageddon.html

Keep it coming...

[Evil Tim]

That was not fair to the movie. I would redo the entire third act if I could.

Only the third one?

[SPEMack618]

Why is he apologizing?

I liked, liked a lot actually, that movie.

It is far fetched and silly, but it still tells a story well, builds characters, and is fun to wtach.

[Evil Tim]

I still think the funniest observation I've heard about the movie's terrible science is that the nuke they use is so puny that even if it somehow split the comet into two halves, it wouldn't overcome their gravity and so the halves would immediately slam back together. That would have been kind of hilarious to watch.

[funkychinaman]

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. Armageddon was bearable, Aerosmith song notwithstanding. The wheels totally came off with Pearl Harbor, and he's been in freefall ever since.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Why is he apologizing?

I liked, liked a lot actually, that movie.

It is far fetched and silly, but it still tells a story well, builds characters, and is fun to wtach.

I agree, in the scale of Michael Bay films it is a pretty good one. He's probably apologising because he feels that he sort of has an excuse for this one. He apparently feels he has no excuse for the truly dire ones like Pearl Harbour and the Transformers sequels.

[SPEMack618]

Fair enough.

For the record, I mostly enjoyed the Transformers sequels.

My theory is that anything with Colonel Lennox and Chief Epps was fun to watch and enjoyable, but anything with Shia LeBeouf was when I would take my bathroom break. (I saw both 2 and 3 pretty well liquored up)