Why doesnt rockstar get sponsored by car companies?

[cytoSiN]

I agree with KaOtiK for two reasons.

First, and most obvious, $$$$$. Car companies can make a LOT of money from a 30 second clip in a movie that is expected to gross hundreds of millions of dollars, even if it means destroying a fancy/expensive car. They can't make much of anything off of most video games.

Second, lawyers (we ruin everything). Car companies want to make money while restricting the use of their brand. It's hard to balance those two in a video game, especially in criminal circumstances, because very little (if anything) is scripted in advance, so there's no way to stop a player from posting a YouTube clip of a homicidal, prostitute-filled rampage involving their brand. It's hard to forecast for the damage that could potentially cause to their brand, not to mention to balance that hard-to-forecast-damage against whatever licensing fees they can get. But in a movie, everything is scripted in advance, so the car companies know EXACTLY what they're getting into. Thus, lawyers advise car companies to stay away from games like GTA but tell them to go for the blockbuster movie, even if the types of criminal behavior in the movie seem similar to some things you can do in GTA.

TL;DR In movies, the risk of damage to the car's brand/reputation is a lot lower, and the potential reward ($$$ and brand exposure) is a lot higher. As KaOTiK said, the proof is in the movies/games themselves.

 

[diesbudt]

Second, lawyers (we ruin everything)

Lawyers and Technology. Ruining humanity since 10,000 B.C.

 

[Smoblikat]

Doesn't it cost a ridiculous amount of money to get car manufactures let you remake their cars in games because the likeness is almost never accurate and cars get smashed up so quickly it detracts from their appeal?? I remember that being a big reason there was no damage to cars in Grand Turismo series.

Good point, though it doesnt make sense to me as a consumer, I guess im not evil and greedy enough to get it. But I can see how cars having on a scratch on them in a game would rub some greedy company the wrong way. Good thing we have mods that fix that problem at least.

Probably has something to do with the fact that in movies the actual car is being driven and doing the stunts etc. It's not a simulation of a car, and in GTA a pretty poor simulation unless their cars drive like 3 wheeled Yugos.

They probably don't want a game that has notoriously wonky car controls representing their cars as the handling etc will not be representative of the actual vehicle. This is a non-issue for movies as they use the real car, and less of an issue in Simulation style games like Forza and the GT series as they try to replicate how a car drives.

It takes a lot of work to get the details right, and car manufactures are probably pretty demanding on how their brand is represented. Forza and GT have entire teams that are dedicated to flying out and seeing the cars in person gathering all the data they can, test drives, exhaust sounds, suspension etc. That all costs a ton of money to do and they can afford it as it is the core aspect of the game. In GTA it probably isn't worth the money to spend the manpower and resources to gather all the car data. Not to mention the GTA engine may not be able to accurately use the data to the car manufacturers satisfaction. Which would require an engine redesign or update just to have accurate cars, which is probably not worth the ROI in sales for the game.

With Licensed Music you just license the master track, or a rendidition of a song, plug it in to the engine as the music while in the car and you're good to go. Don't have to record it all live or make sure all the instruments are accurately represented. Just license the song, get a hi-def MP3/ogg/whatever file of it and hit play. I'm willing to bet the ROI on songs is astronomically higher than the ROI on accurately modeling dozens of cars that please the licencors.

What you are saying makes sense, but the fact that the manufacturer gives a shit doesnt.

 

[thespyder]

I'd be willing to bet that some of it is the target market. Car dealers simply don't think that they would get enough of a lift from their target demographic in the video gamer segment.

Also, although GTA is a very popular franchise, it has also had it's share of problems (Hot coffee). And so considering the relatively small lift/cross section of consumers, and the potential negative popularity due to the subject matter, I would imagine that there isn't a significant push behind the whole idea.

 

[cytoSiN]

I'd be willing to bet that some of it is the target market. Car dealers simply don't think that they would get enough of a lift from their target demographic in the video gamer segment.

Also, although GTA is a very popular franchise, it has also had it's share of problems (Hot coffee). And so considering the relatively small lift/cross section of consumers, and the potential negative popularity due to the subject matter, I would imagine that there isn't a significant push behind the whole idea.

Good point. Marketing a Jaguar to a 13-year-old isn't exactly money well spent.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I think that a key distinction between film usage and game usage (in the case of the GTA games) is that in films, a car that becomes the focus of a scene is usually being used in a manner that flaunts its appearance and/or performance (both of which carmakers see as positive things to promote their brand). In grand theft auto, cars are actively used to perpetrate simulated violent acts, such as running over virtual pedestrians, conduct drive by shootings, deliver car bombs, etc. (all of which carmakers would view as negative things with which their brand should be dissociated).

 

[0___________0]

I believe Ferrari disallowed EA to use their cars in their NFS series because of the illegal driving. Probably something along the same lines here.

 

[Smoblikat]

Are these companies concerned that we will be confused by the game? Do they think that because we saw their car in a ideo game doing somthing that we will only associate their car with bad acts? I hope thats not the case, if i is, how stupid do they think we are?

 

[thespyder]

I think that a key distinction between film usage and game usage (in the case of the GTA games) is that in films, a car that becomes the focus of a scene is usually being used in a manner that flaunts its appearance and/or performance (both of which carmakers see as positive things to promote their brand). In grand theft auto, cars are actively used to perpetrate simulated violent acts, such as running over virtual pedestrians, conduct drive by shootings, deliver car bombs, etc. (all of which carmakers would view as negative things with which their brand should be dissociated).

As far as this goes, I think that most car manufacturers are concerned, it is the Madonna principal. "It doesn't matter what you say about something, so long as you spell the name right." any publicity is considered good.

However, again, there is probably very little cross section in the target markets between video games like GTA and car (particularly high end cars) sales. Add to that the fact that most commercial sponsorship is at the local level anyway with the intent to bring in people to local dealerships, and you are talking a very VERY small ROI indeed.

 

[KaOTiK]

Are these companies concerned that we will be confused by the game? Do they think that because we saw their car in a ideo game doing somthing that we will only associate their car with bad acts? I hope thats not the case, if i is, how stupid do they think we are?

Why not? The general public seems to believe that if you play violent games that can trigger you to do crazy shootings.

 

[diesbudt]

Are these companies concerned that we will be confused by the game? Do they think that because we saw their car in a ideo game doing somthing that we will only associate their car with bad acts? I hope thats not the case, if i is, how stupid do they think we are?

Wait? we are not suppossed to?

Oh hell... no wonder why the hooker looked at me weird when I beat her after sex, and I told her to stop crying and its fine it happens all the time in GTA.

 

[KaOTiK]

Wait? we are not suppossed to?

Oh hell... no wonder why the hooker looked at me weird when I beat her after sex, and I told her to stop crying and its fine it happens all the time in GTA.

That isn't the reason she was looking at you weird. she was wondering why you didn't take her money afterwards. There is an expected order to these events and you broke protocol.

 

[SunnyD]

Generally it works the other way around - the car manufacturers are going to expect royalties for using their trademarks in games. That's the way it works. Product placement is rather new in games (not really, but only just becoming mainstream). Sponsorship on the other hand is a different story.

The other side of it is competition. A game like GTA features so many different BRANDS of vehicles that no one company would be able to get exclusivity, lest to ruin the depth of the game. No company is going to agree to advertising along side a rival in a potential spot where their car is getting crushed or blown up by some competing brand.

 

[Dankk]

A big part of it is probably because Rockstar doesn't want any corporate sponsorships to pollute, hinder, or obstruct their otherwise stellar creative direction. They don't want to bend over backwards for any car companies and lose that little bit of creative control to meet the sponsor's demands.

 

[Childs]

It probably has more to do with GTA's reputation, so automakers are not looking to be associated with it. And due to the crappy driving physics in GTA, Rockstar probably doesn't want to hear from automakers about how crappy their cars are in the game. Automakers generally have no problems putting their cars in games, even when they get trashed or suck compared to other cars in the game.

From an advertising perspective, I would think having real cars in GTA would be perfect advertising. Like a tobacco company advertising to kids. Its a long term plan. Someone who grows up playing GTA might be more willing to buy a Chevy if he/she used a Chevy in GTA. The brand recognition would be burned into their psyche.

 

[greenhawk]

What you are saying makes sense, but the fact that the manufacturer gives a shit doesnt.

they give a **** as it is called brand image.

that is worth a lot and not something to be just trashed for a quick buck or laugh.

 

[greenhawk]

Are these companies concerned that we will be confused by the game? Do they think that because we saw their car in a ideo game doing somthing that we will only associate their car with bad acts? I hope thats not the case, if i is, how stupid do they think we are?

they might not see it that way, but it does not take much to get the media to spin a story which gets the average mom and pop in a twist which refects badly on all who are related to the product.

That is something the companies are concerned about.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

they give a **** as it is called brand image.

that is worth a lot and not something to be just trashed for a quick buck or laugh.

If monetary gain overcomes "Brand Image" they will change there minds in a hurry because the share holders run the company not the CEO etc.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Are there any existing games that allow you to commit vehicular manslaughter on an endless number of pedestrians in a licensed automobile (Chevy, Ford...etc.)?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

As far as this goes, I think that most car manufacturers are concerned, it is the Madonna principal. "It doesn't matter what you say about something, so long as you spell the name right." any publicity is considered good.

I really do not think that's true. Any publicity is good publicity for celebrities because their income is tied to being in the public eye. Whether they are a face or a heel doesn't matter, so long as a lot of people are interested in what they are doing (see, e.g., snookie). In contrast, the profitability of a retail product such as an automobile is often lowered by negative publicity. I.e., people don;t flock to buy a car when that car has been the subject of a news story indicating that it has a faulty fuel tank or that it has problems starting.

Case in point is the toyota scandal from a few years ago. You know, the one where people blamed "unexplained acceleration" for causing their car to crash. Toyota gained enormous publicity from that, but it was all negative until they spent millions of dollars proving that the accusations were simply false. Why did they spend that money? Because they were concerned about the negative effect on sales resulting from that bad association with unexplained acceleration.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Buckyballs received a bump in sales and profitability when they were recently banned in several states. But that bump likely won't last long, and will probably be offset by the fact that folks that are buying now (despite the bad news) were likely always going to buy, whereas folks on the fence now almost assuredly will not.

 

[HarvardAce]

Are these companies concerned that we will be confused by the game? Do they think that because we saw their car in a ideo game doing somthing that we will only associate their car with bad acts? I hope thats not the case, if i is, how stupid do they think we are?

How smart do you think the general population is? Sure, it sounds stupid to you and to me, but look at your average advertisement. Did it make you want to purchase that product? Probably not, but Anheuser Busch spends close to a billion dollars a year on advertising (citation needed), and they've obviously done research to show that it's worth the money.