Until recent years, the video game franchise Call of Duty (COD) was able to accurately replicate the firearms used in warfare within its games. Notably, they utilized real weapon names to increased authenticity. However, this trend has ceased in the latest releases. Instead, the developers opted for fictionalized or procedurally generated weapons. This marked change has been consistent, causing fans to question why the switch took place.
The answer lies in the grey area of intellectual property (IP) laws. Firearms manufacturers retain IP rights over their products, just like any inventor or creator. To use real weapon names in the game, Activision, the publisher of the COD franchise, was required to seek permission from these manufacturers.
Moreover, gaining this permission was not a simple process involving a polite ask. It entailed signing contracts, paying licensing fees, and observing strict usage parameters. These burdensome requirements regulated how the weapons, their names, and images could be presented within the game.
The complications did not end there. Numerous firearms manufacturers across the world exist, each producing different and specialized weapons. Therefore, obtaining permission from each manufacturer for every weapon featured proved a logistical nightmare.
Given these frustrating factors, it is more understandable how Activision decided to shift away from using real weapon names. Instead, they create their own weapons, providing them complete control, freedom, and flexibility over design and implementation.
While claiming copyright over a physical object such as a firearm may seem unusual, legal cases prove its precedence. In the case of Humvee vs. Activision, the vehicle manufacturer sued the publisher for featuring their vehicles prominently in the COD games, asserting it as a violation of their IP rights.
Nevertheless, Activision was victorious in court when the judge ruled in their favor. The judge justified his decision on the basis of realism, arguing that the inclusion of real-life items like Humvees contribute to the realistic depiction of modern warfare, thus falling under the fair use provision.
One would reasonably expect that a favorable ruling like this would encourage Activision to continue featuring real item names. Regardless, the ordeal likely proved risky and potentially costly. Pricey court battles and potential damage to reputation can prove more detrimental than prospective benefits.
Another important factor to consider is the public image of firearms. In the current sociopolitical environment, featuring real weapon names can invite criticism and negative publicity. By using fictionalized weapon names, potential conflicts with all these sensitivities can be avoided.
Also, using real weapons might require adjustments based on real-life specifications which may inadvertently affect the game's balance. For game developers, balancing every weapon's strength, accuracy, and power in relation to one another is a key gameplay cornerstone.
From the developers' perspective, it's also more profitable and beneficial to have ownership of the in-game weapons. Not only do they avoid potential legal disputes, but it allows them to adjust the weapon's specifications freely to create a balanced and competitive gaming environment.
Even from a creative standpoint, creating new weapons without needing to conform to real-life mechanisms or engineering may allow for more stimulating gameplay. Not being tethered to reality gives the developers a wider creative scope and potential to conceptualize more unique and engaging weapons.
Moreover, futureproofing could also be a potential reason to make the switch. Activision might have envisioned a future where firearms manufacturers could demand more exorbitant licensing fees or even withhold permission.
From this standpoint, leaving behind real weapon names isn't just a defensive strategy in dealing with the unpredictability of IP laws. It also holds a strong position from an offensive strategy, keeping COD free from manufacturer influence and unpredictable market variables.
Thus, the shift away from real weapon names in COD is not merely a simplification. It's a calculated move that provides multiple benefits for the game developers. Whilst also creating a safer, more balanced gaming environment for its vast and dedicated player base.
For the players, this change might sacrifice a degree of authenticity the franchise initially provided. But with the improved balance, engaging mechanics, and the prospect of avoiding legal dramas, it might prove a necessary shift.
This systematic shift underlines the complex intersection of intellectual property, licensing, public relations, and the inexhaustible search for widely balanced gameplay. This makes the process of game development even more nuanced, challenging, and at times, fraught with difficult decisions.
In summary, Activision’s choice to replace real weapons with fictional ones in the COD series may have begun as a defensive strategy. However, in the long run, it seems like it has also become a strategic creative decision. Their priority appears to be the preservation of the integrity of their games, the balance, and overall player engagement.