I despise that licensing is a thing in video games. They're an art form and you should be able to depict whatever you want. I don't care if Porsche, John Deere or Sig Sauer get their feelings hurt because someone made art.

▲

voidfunc 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If you call something a Porsche, John Deere, or a Sig Sauer and inaccurately represent it you're doing brand damage especially in the modern era where it could become a toxic meme on TikTok or whatever.

That's no good and should be prevented.

Developers could pony up for perpetual licenses if they cared but they don't.

	▲	hakfoo 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I was under the impression that most gameplay scenarios are positive exposure for real-world brands. The kid who spends 500 hours of his childhood driving around specific cars in games is developing brand preferences before he ever steps foot in a dealership. A smart brand would be eager to undercut their competitors for licensing-- even to the point of giving them away free, assuming the negotiate positive brand exposure.
	▲	xkcd1963 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm sure perp licences are more expensive, also nobody should be forbidden from using brands for artistic purposes. If a company licences the color "red" for their branding and it henceforth requires licencing for use they can shove that idea up their rear