Licencing - who pays who?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScouserInExile
  • 24 comments
  • 2,935 views
S

ScouserInExile

Messages
687
As I was watching B-Spec Bob thrash the Indy500 in my FGT last night, I spotted that it has Castrol logos behind the driver's head. Given that this isn't a licenced car and isn't, therefore, part of the "correct" livery, I started wondering whether Castrol has paid for their logo to be there - it is advertising for them afterall.

This then sparked a bit of a debate between my wife and I (we need to get out more!). Do you reckon that car manufacturers are paid by Sony / PD to have their cars in the game or is it the other way around? Would a car manufacturer pay for their product to be in the game, since it's probably better advertising than a TV slot in the middle of a car programme?

Whenever I've dealt with licencing in games in the past, it's always been the publisher that has paid the licence holder for the licence, but I'm not so sure in this case...

Opinions? Anyone have the inside scoop on this one?
 
I've always been under the impression that companies such Castrol, BP .. etc ... purchase certain "advertising packages" from PD. I'm assuming that say if you pay $X, you get your logos randomly put in the game (possibly a certain number of signs and decals). If you pay $Y (could be 3x as much etc, just a larger amount), you can get a larger package of signs/decals.

Of course i wouldn't have a clue, but it's fun to guess ;).

Honestly, if PD aren't getting any money from these companies they need to rethink that. I understand that big names such as Castrol bring a more popular and realistic approach to the game, however as previously said, the advertising in GT5 would be the same if not greater than a TV advertisement.
 
I think it highly depends on the license in question...

The major car manufacturers, like Ferrari or Nissan, will probably ask a decent amount of monay from PD. For the simple reason that those cars are highly sought after or make up a rather large portion of the available cars.
Smaller stuff, like Tesla, will probably submit their licenses for free or even pay a small fee to get the advertisement that comes from GT.

As for the companies that appear on track-side signs and the like, I think it's a given that they're having to fork some cash over in order to appear in the game. Unlike cars, PD could easily replace that kind of stuff and I highly doubt anybody would really care. I'm quite certain that PD isn't paying anything to have that kind of stuff in the game, at the very least.
 
Didn't Kaz say that they [PD] didn't accept payments from car manufacturers to have their product in the game? If so, I guess that PD have to pay for the licenses. And with the Castrol logo, they probably had to ask permission for the use of the logo. I doubt they had to pay extra to put it on a fantasy car.
 
On this topic, have you guys noticed that their aren't as many manafacturers names around the tracks. I'm talking about trial mountain, deep forest, high speed ring etc. these photos are from GT4 grand valley. ignore the graphics and notice the dodge 7 tvr signs. On GT5 as far as i know their are no manafacturer signs around the track at all.
screenshot20110121at102.png
screenshot20110121at102.png

This may seem off topic, but it agrees with your theory.
 
On the other hand, some tracks are made to be historically accurate - like Le Mans, Nurburgring, Laguna Seca - so I doubt these sponsors would have to pay anything.
 
I was only talking about the PD made tracks (i mentioned deep forest, trial mountain & grand valley), Nurburgring 24hr track has lots of manufacturer sponsors but they are the ones that are their in the real world
 
Tesla
Didn't Kaz say that they [PD] didn't accept payments from car manufacturers to have their product in the game?
Click to expand...
Kaz said a lot of things during the development time of GT5. And many of those things have been spun around, re-interpreted or translated in various ways, so I'm kinda on the fence about it.

Anyways, I doubt they're paying for small manufacturers to appear, or the tuning companies. I doubt anyone would care if, say, Tesla wasn't in the game. Not enough to make it worthwhile for PD to pay them, at least.

Also, I think MrDinosaw94 made a very good point. PD probably used the manufacturers for track side signs back in the day because they could without paying for additional licenses. Nowadays, you see lots of company names on those track side objects. Motul, NGK and so on...
 
Answering these questions really is a total guessing game because most answers seem plausible.

My opinion is that in the beginning (GT1 and GT2), PD would have to have purchased licences from the car manufacture to use likenesses of their cars in the game. As the GT series has grown it's become a very useful advertising tool so most manufacturers would come to some sort of an agreement with PD with very little or no money at all exchanging hands (what every day car manufacturer wants their cars excluded while their biggest market rivals have their cars and names displayed to millions of potential customers?)

In the case of Ferrari, McLaren, Lamborghini etc I think these licences are purchased and I think there will be a lot of do's and don'ts in the agreement made.

I don't think PD accept money from companies wishing to have their cars in the game on the basis that Kazunori himself has said that they've been offered money before and turned it down and don't want to go down that road.

For the sponsor logos I think that it will be some sort of give and take thing, PD can make GT more authentic using them and the company gets free advertising. As there's no blatant product placement in GT from companies that have nothing to do with racing (i.e McDonalds and Burger King billboards everywhere) I'd take that as a sign that PD don't accept money from sponsors.
 
The way I looked at it is that companies like EA or Sony/PD makes more money from having certain car/brand in game, thus it is them paying the OEMs for the right to use the name/model/brand in game.
 
PD pays more sought after manufacturers a heft fee for certain makes and models like already stated. Lesser manufacturers then are paid less, or have to pay PD, like already stated.

In the case of car sponsors theres two outcomes:

~Fantasy cars, PD would have approached the sponsor and asked for a sponsor agreement.

~Real Race Cars, PD would have approached the rightsholder to the race car and team to purchase all livery regarding that car or team. Like in the case of Ferrari, where the F1 team refuted clearly to have the car used as competition.

And tracks:

~Tracks, Historical tracks like Le-Mans, Monza and generally most "Real" tracks would have their advertisements included with the licensing agreement for that track, and would be purchased by PD.

~Fantasy Tracks, PD would approach sponsors and then create a large volume of both paid, and royalty sponsorship. Royalty being PD pays the sponsors for their involvement, Paid means PD is paid BY the sponsors for their involvement.
 
I think it's companies paying PD to be part of the game. If you really think about it, most car companies would love to be in this game - its direct marketing as gamers spend ours watching their cars drive around a course. This then goes the same for the suppliers, they would want the same part of the action as drivers, lap after lap, see their logo somewhere on the screen.
 
I don't think the license fees would be that high, because including the cars in-game is a mutually beneficial arrangement i.e. manufacturers get the exposure of having their cars/logos featured in GT5, and in turn GT5 are permitted to use their models.

It would only become an issue if a manufacturer is holding out for large sums of $$$, or PD/Kaz is desperate to get a specific car in the game.
 
tezster
I don't think the license fees would be that high, because including the cars in-game is a mutually beneficial arrangement i.e. manufacturers get the exposure of having their cars/logos featured in GT5, and in turn GT5 are permitted to use their models.

It would only become an issue if a manufacturer is holding out for large sums of $$$, or PD/Kaz is desperate to get a specific car in the game.
Click to expand...

We're talking millions of dollars when it comes to licensing agreements. Of the quoted 60 million dollar-ish development cost, at least 1/3rd would have gone into licensing, maybe as much as 1/2. Especially the licensing of Super GT, WRC, and NASCAR as well as the necessary licensing and trademarking of the X1. On the car side anyway. PD probably holds many car licenses over from GT3 which is how cars that old made it into the game.
 
MLDoom
I think it's companies paying PD to be part of the game. If you really think about it, most car companies would love to be in this game - its direct marketing as gamers spend ours watching their cars drive around a course. This then goes the same for the suppliers, they would want the same part of the action as drivers, lap after lap, see their logo somewhere on the screen.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that as manufacturers such as Proton and Kia are excluded from the game and they would, in my opinion, be just the sort of car companies who would pay for PD to advertise their cars.
 
About the Ferrari licence, it makes one wonder.

NFS had that licence until the hot pursuit game on the PS2 (forgot the name). Then, NFS went the Fast and Furious route with Underground 1 & 2, MW, etc. And lost the Ferarri licence. Maybe something to do with the do's and dont's of said licence.

However, at the same time, SEGA had the Ferarri licence for the Outrun reboot. It's an arcade game, nowhere close to the real car performance.

Now Forza and GT have the licence.

So we can see some things in this:

1- I don't think SEGA would buy an expensive licence for a game as modest as Outrun,

2- If it was a matter of customisation (a restriction), Forza wouldn't have the licence.

3- It has nothing to do with illegal racing. Both NFS and Outrun had Ferraris racing in public roads and hitting cars etc.

4- Was there no licence to be bought, GT would have Ferraris from day one.

5- There are no exclusive deals, it seems.

Maybe the licence itself isn't that expensive, but instead is limited by the use one will make of it (think burnout). This would justify why NFS lost the licence during the "Yo I'm da racer" years. But still wouldn't explain why GT didn't get it back in the PS2 days.
 
Maybe back in the GT2 days another software company held the exclusive licence for the use of Ferrari and if another developer wanted them in their game they would have to pay the company who held the licence, much the same as the EA/Porsche licence these days. It seems that Sony are unwilling to pay other publishers for these licences and/or the holders are unwilling to let Sony use them in GT.
 
I wondered about the advertising too. I can understand that with real-life cars and tracks, the sponsors probably have to sign an agreement that if the car or track is recreated in a game, they don't have a say about their logo being included.

But with semi-fantasy tracks like Madrid, Rome or London, where the geography is real even if the track isn't, do the businesses trackside have any say in the matter?

5376147714_e6316225e7.jpg


I assume the city track scenery was created from Google Streetview or something similar (and from a few years ago judging by shops like Virgin Megastore being present). Where does the law stand though? Is a videogame a piece of "art", so just like with a photograph of a street, there is no problem including branding? Obviously I doubt any of these companies would decide they wanted to pay to advertise in GT5 (unless it's very subliminal - I really must go see Jerry Springer - The Opera), and I can't see there being that many sherry-drinkers amongst GT5 players (apologies if I'm wrong!) that it would be worth Tio Pepe wanting to be included.
 
Off the Bit
I wondered about the advertising too. I can understand that with real-life cars and tracks, the sponsors probably have to sign an agreement that if the car or track is recreated in a game, they don't have a say about their logo being included.

But with semi-fantasy tracks like Madrid, Rome or London, where the geography is real even if the track isn't, do the businesses trackside have any say in the matter?

5376147714_e6316225e7.jpg


I assume the city track scenery was created from Google Streetview or something similar (and from a few years ago judging by shops like Virgin Megastore being present). Where does the law stand though? Is a videogame a piece of "art", so just like with a photograph of a street, there is no problem including branding? Obviously I doubt any of these companies would decide they wanted to pay to advertise in GT5 (unless it's very subliminal - I really must go see Jerry Springer - The Opera), and I can't see there being that many sherry-drinkers amongst GT5 players (apologies if I'm wrong!) that it would be worth Tio Pepe wanting to be included.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would ever go as far as to become a legal issue, unless of course the game showed their company in a bad way which could be seen as damaging to the companys image. I mean realistically, what company would turn down some free advertising?

I'm assuming that it works the same way as it does for movies and TV shows where you regularly see stores, company logos etc when the filming takes place on an actual street. Unless the actual store in question is featured as part of the movie/show or filming will in some way affect the companys business during filming, then they don't need permission to film it if it's just in the background.
 
Last edited:
I think if PD was making money off the advertising there would be at least one sign that said: "Your Message Here, great rates! Email: kaz@granturismo.com"
 
My theory is that PD ask the brands "are you cool with being in our game?" and most say "of course", but some say non, which is why you sometimes see kinda "fake" liveries

Regarding the earlier point about Ferrari, I might be wrong here but the original Outrun appeared to use a droptop Testarossa, which never existed in stock form and i'm not totally sure they ever had permission. This is backed up by later emulated versions using a pretty generic red car that doesn't look especially like a Ferrari, until the console-only Outrun 2 (Coast to Coast) which presumably has the proper license.

That said, not sure where Turbo Outrun fits in to this as it was obviously an F40, or the home computer only Outun Europa

On a side note I know that Fiat/Ferrari are very precious about copyright issues, i've experienced this in a certain very large online "world" i sometimes inhabit.
 
PD Pays for almost all the liscenses. If a company approaches PD (other then car companys) with advertising with GT in mind, then they are paying for it. This rarely happens...
 
I thought they just paid for the car liveries, which comes with all the logos that on the actual car. If its anything like TV,PD would have to pay the companies to use the likenesses of the logos on their own.
 
I wonder if the companies are paying/giving free licence to PD for the mandatory cars in the seasonals? or even if they payed to be premium?
 
ucwepn
I wonder if the companies are paying/giving free licence to PD for the mandatory cars in the seasonals? or even if they payed to be premium?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the mandatory cars in the seasonal events. PD gets the liscence for the cars, When its in the game, thats it, they can make events with specific cars if they like (Unless they dont have a liscense for certain race series, like F1-using the f1 cars in the game). I dont think Companys are too interested in specific features like premium or not. The only thing car companys care about (that is under PD) is the damage. Some dont like their cars being damaged so much, These companys make it clear however.
 
Back