I know BIS won't pay licence for real vehicles and weapon names in-game, but i found out about this:
TL;DR : it looks like thanks to EA if a vehicle is 100% true in the visual to the real world counterpart, its not "stealing" nor using without permission because it would be the same as taking a pic from the vehicle. This could be used to avoid the usage of fake names for every vehicle/weapon in the videogame industry (an example would be what rockstar does)
Well the fact that BI would need to make the vehicles 100% accurate... can be done, just time consuming.
Is it worth the time? Probably not, but i'll support the idea so if it happens, great.
UNLESS the vehicles are already 100% to their real life counterpart, and BI did not know about what EA has done, then you may have opened eyes.
Upvote++
BI might possibly leave it as-is due to the 'Arma-verse,' and it could be easily accomplished by the community with a simple config file that changes all the displayName of the base classes, but up-voted nonetheless.
Well the vehicles aren't 100% accurate to their real life counterparts for the most part, and they shouldn't be since this is the future... so good idea but probably not realistic.
Why shouldn't they be? Other than the Ghosthawk and Kajmin they are based on real life vehicles in use right right now. The ghosthawk is an exception as its clouded in secrecy. The models are very true to the actual real life version, BIS even is working on fixing the east points on the Comanche to make the visual model more true to the real life version.
I would suspect they changed the names to avoid the lawsuit that EA got into. I would say the vehicles in Arma 3 are visually closer than EA could make because BIS aims for realism more than EA. Arma 3's field guide even talks about them realistically and true to the real life vehicle.
You don't completely change the name of a vehicle when you upgrade it for more modern combat. You would call it the same as the original name but say it was fitted for more modern combat.
Woodpecker, Tholozor and General scott:
In the ArmA verse of everything before ArmA 3 every name was real, even weapons, and the vehicles now are around 80% real, besides the RAH-66 wich no one knows how close is compared to the AH-99, or the enemy fusion of a Hind and a Black shark. so its nothing more than a small namechange, they dont need to actually change the model or textures, the PO-30 Orca is pretty much the same as the real counter part (wich name i forgot)
Progamer: if the name doesn't matter then we should call the Mh-9 an "F-14 Tomcat"..... but names DOES matter, after all, they are IDs, and EA won the lawsuit, wich would affect the whole gaming industry so no one pay licence to use the name and image of vehicles and weapons, the point of the ticket is to suggest that we use the same reason to use real names.
I dont hate this close future of ArmA 3, i hate how BIS devs thinks that mean they can do whatever they want with the names, structure, and equipment.
They don't just make things up even the Kajmin is based off of three real life vehicles. They technically used the GhostHawk's code name/ public name. But I agree this new ruling does affect what fears BIS would have with using real names but the real question is how this would work in the other major countries unless EA has done that too.
Death, I am also for this ticket as I have wanted this for a long time.
"but the real question is how this would work in the other major countries unless EA has done that too."
sorry, dont understand what you mean.
And yes, i am sure mroe than half of the community wants the real names, finding out about one way to avoid paying licences for names and models, because the fake names break inmersion.
Actually, you pay licence only if the model AND the name are alike the real product, if the M9/A9 looks like a MD-500 more than a littlebird, and we name it littlebird, or if we pick up the Ghosthawk and we name it black hawk, there would be no licence to pay
It's really hard going from years of Arma 2 with realistic names and vehicles to Arma 3. Arma 3 at the moment appears like it takes place in a modern and not futuristic era. Using real modern vehicles and weapons that militaries have as standard would have looked a lot more futuristic.
Oh, and pro, sorry if this is a doublepost, but the logic that EA used works everywhere because its about where is Bell located, not about where is EA located. So yes, BIS can (if they dare to) do the same thing (and maybe succeed).
Dr Death - "free speech protections" and "Supreme Court rulings" and "First Amendment" mentioned in the article apply only to the laws of United States of America. It does not necessarily apply to the Czech Republic or the EU or anywhere else. If Bell wanted to they could mount challenges in other jurisdictions and make such a move by BI uneconomical. Besides, EA and Bell agreed to a private settlement with undisclosed terms. Who is to say that the terms didn't involve a payment or exclusivity license?
but the companies are american, also, i have not even heard of the agreement of EA and bell