JohnnyCanuck

people that take away rights and imprisons them in deplorable inhumane conditions should not be a leader

https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/trump-promises-to-militarize-police-reincarcerate-thousands-and-expand-death-penalty

Usually, when it's a one-off like this, the video game gets "paid" to put the stuff in their game. That payment may be in-kind advertising campaigns, etc.

For something like Need for Speed, Forza, etc, the game will be licensing the likeness of the vehicles and the company logos in the game. I don't know the costs, but the fact that it's also advertising will factor in.

In this case, there are a few likely scenarios:

1. The game director or art director or someone high up at Epic has a hard-on for the Cybertruck and really wanted it in the game. So they pursued Tesla and made a deal.
2. Epic wanted to add vehicles to the game and decided to go with licensed vehicles. Their merchandising people reached out to merchandising people at all the auto companies and then figured out some deals.
3. Someone high up at Tesla (maybe even Musk) loves, or has a kid who loves, Fortnite and decided they want the Cybertruck in the game. So they pursued Epic to make a deal.

Number 2 is most likely, but I don't know the game well enough to know the vehicle situation in it.

For all of them, you have to factor in a bunch of details to figure out who is paying who:

• who wants it more (/ power imbalance)
• how much money is it going to cost to make the models, animations, etc
• how much is it going to cost players to get the item
• are there aspects that either company finds undesirable (E.g. sometimes car companies don't like their cars shown with damage)
• who will be doing the bulk of the marketing, and who has the marketing budget to spend on the venture
• probably a lot more

So, it's hard to say without more inside info. Games I've worked on have had 1 and 2, but not 3 as far as I know. I think it was pretty much an in-kind deal for the 1 situation though (like we got the likenesses, they got advertising through the game, ostensibly we sold more games with the likenesses, but I think it just stroked someone's ego...) All of the 2 situations were done to bring in money for the game's marketing budget / or were in-kind marketing deals, possibly bringing money directly to the bottom line, but I don't know.

BMOC was pretty common at one point for "Big Man on Campus" so I think it's a play on that.

Though the QB was often a BMOC, so you're not far off!

This is why I quit hockey and ball hockey. I'm too old to recover well from injuries and every team seems to have one meat-head that is just there to be an aggressive, dangerous twat, and by definition they're carrying a big stick. Sometimes it's the whole damn team. And leagues don't do enough to curb it, so I'm all for the law stepping in to enforce punishment for these assaults (on and off the rink).

I'm only asking that question because the article is about assault-style firearms, and OP said they are pushing the article based on shootings that may, or may not, involve assault-style weapons.

I wasn't implying anything about general firearms issues or licensing.

Did they involve assault style rifles?

Archive: https://archive.is/qdpSh

Yeah it's been a while since I've been down there and I remember it being a nice little market. I was going to check it out but when I went to find the hours I realized it seemed more restricted and "official" now.

I'll just quietly leave this here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/crowdstrike-google-cloud-expand-strategic-partnership/

Turns out this is a CrowdStrike issue though, so unrelated in this case.

Bye Bob.