Let’s Talk About Licensing in Video Games and Why That’s Terrible for the Medium as a Whole
Let’s Talk About Licensing in Video Games and Why That’s Terrible for the Medium as a Whole
14 Comments
I’m still hoping they will make the most of the 40k ip
I really hope this pushes game devs to use less licensed stuff, and focus on making their own. Microsoft and 343i don’t have to worry about losing the license on Master Chief, they fuckin made the guy.
Corporate control of intellectual property is one of the greatest deflaters of creativity, and the fact it’s often used to try to argue defending small creators is sickening.
I don’t know a ton about licensing for stuff like this, but how are these people not negotiating contracts that encompass “indefinite use in this singular product.”
Like yeah, make them relicense if they’re going to create a sequel or something, but how is it with video games specifically you can license a song and then 15 years later need to not sell the game anymore because of licensing? It’s never a problem with films. I legitimately don’t understand how when they negotiate for example a song for “Game X” that doesn’t mean it’s useable in the context of the specific product that is “Game X” indefinitely.
​
I probably just don’t know enough about licensing and it’s intentionally obtuse and greed-based. But I wouldn’t make something that uses some licensed thing if I knew it wouldn’t be available on a permanent basis.
I miss when Marvel, DC and Lucasfilm just gave their IP to everything. You’d get like 20 major IP games a year. All fairly cheap, most of which are bad, but some Gems in there.
“The first is to just… let the publisher sell the game after the license expires. Most of what a game makes happens at the start of its lifecycle (unless it’s the type of game to be updated for many years, but that’s not what we’re talking about), so letting the publisher just sell the thing after the license would lose the license holders much money. But they’d still lose on some money, and that’s just unacceptable!”
It’s not about the money from one game. It’s about the fact that trademark law requires you defend your trademarks or you run the risk of not being able make trademark claims down the road.
Distribution licensing is a bit different. Spec Ops had their existing agreement expire. That means the current holder either didn’t want to continue being the distributor or they failed to come to a new agreement.
It’s interesting Marvel’s now on the other side of this. They did a ton of licensed comics that haven’t been available or in print forever because of this kind of IP deal. DC Comics as well.
I HATE the new “Internet required” licensing for single player games. Hogwarts legacy was pretty fun, but it only required Internet so it can Ping you every hour to check that it’s Still a legal copy. Wtf
The amount of great racing games we lost in the name of licencing is insane
I remember this was pet of the problem with Guitar Hero and Rock Band. All those DLCs and purchased songs were actually for a limited time. I remember my brother trying to play his Metallica DLC and it not working because the Xbox wouldn’t let him.
The point is this isn’t new. This problem has been around before and people just forget about it. The same thing is probably gonna happen here and that sucks. And it’s gonna happen again.
Any article that starts with “let’s talk” makes my cornhole itch.
Licensing isn’t new and isn’t going anywhere. It’s why shows may not release on DVD or streaming and why nobody in a bar scene will ever ask for a specific beer.
One of my biggest complaints is that re-releases never get their original soundtracks (Crazy Taxi), or that re-releases won’t happen because they won’t have the expired license content available, or delisting is motivated primarily by expired license content.
The fact of the matter is that licensing is big money and companies don’t want to leave that money on the table. Look at the spat between Polyphony Digital/Sony and Lotus Cars. The latter’s new CEO was pissed that PD got the license to use their cars for cheap (it was made when they were a much smaller automaker with just 1 current model) and withdrew the license in a hissy fit waiting for PD to pay them as much as bigger automakers. Hence there are no Lotus vehicles in GT7 despire the work already having been done on them.
>This is because Sony refused to pay the licensing fees for the Chrysler Building (yes, they needed to license that, yes, it’s unbelievably stupid), so it’s not in the game anymore.
This is the most disturbing part to me, how have I not heard about… this kind of thing? It’s wild that you can build an enormous structure that juts into the sky above a city and you’re allowed to keep artists from putting it into their depictions of the city.