Usually I'd expect the game company has to pay the owner of the brand it wants to use, but what about games like Pikmin? Seems to me a game like Pikmin could've been totally funded by the company's that want their products featured, as the products themselves are actually a big focus in te game. Does anybody know who paid who for Pikmin?

kirl wrote:
>Usually I'd expect the game company has to pay the owner of the brand it wants to use, but what about games like Pikmin?

There's product placement in Pikmin? What product?

>Does anybody know who paid who for Pikmin?

I'm sure someone does. But I'm not sure what the question is...?

Pikmin was developed and published by Nintendo. I don't know of any product placement in the game. Can you explain what product it is your talking about?

Pikmin 2 has some product placement. If I remember correctly, there are Coke cans in the game.

If you played Pikmin you must've noticed Duracell, DrPepper and loads of other familiar products being carried around the screen.

Duracell battery

You can't miss it, for every collected item you get this review screen where you can rotate the model to view it from all sides...

As far as I know, it takes money to use officially licensed products in a game. In a game like pikmin, all these super sized, licensed products pass by. I don't see why Nintendo would want to pay to use these, and in fact I can see why a company may want to pay Nintendo to have their product featured in a game like pikmin.

So what's the deal? Am I mistaken that it takes money, or did Nintendo actually pay to use all these brands?

It really depends. I bet Nintendo was getting paid for pikmin. For racing games that have real cars in them the game maker pays for the privilege.

there is a difference between licensing and product placement. Product placement is meant as an advertisement in some way, licensing is using say a specific car because it would be an advantage of the person creating the game (or a specific sports team, etc...)

Quote: Original post by ibebrett
there is a difference between licensing and product placement. Product placement is meant as an advertisement in some way, licensing is using say a specific car because it would be an advantage of the person creating the game (or a specific sports team, etc...)

Companies like Massive are in the business of getting brand names into games. So it's possible that Nintendo was paid to put those products in their game.

Quote: Original post by Kirl
As far as I know, it takes money to use officially licensed products in a game. In a game like pikmin, all these super sized, licensed products pass by. I don't see why Nintendo would want to pay to use these, and in fact I can see why a company may want to pay Nintendo to have their product featured in a game like pikmin.

So what's the deal? Am I mistaken that it takes money, or did Nintendo actually pay to use all these brands?

If a Pikmin game had product placements in it, I guarantee you that Nintendo did not pay anything for that. They have no reason to!

Just think about it - who benefits most from having a product (such as Coca-Cola) appear in a Nintendo game? Why would Nintendo want to pay to use Coke cans in their game? (Hint: they wouldn't.) Why would Coke pay Nintendo to use Coke cans in the game? Easy - because it's advertising. Coca-Cola pays millions for TV ads, magazine ads, and signs in stores. It just makes sense that they'd pay Nintendo to showcase their product in a game.

The real answer (and this is not a legal answer), is that it depends. Any licensing/advertising deal is to be worked out by the lawyers of the interested parties. Most likely if you consider it to be advertising, the publisher is profiting, and if you consider it "using a license" the publisher will have to dish out some cash.

Having worked on several sports titles, trying to use authentic equipment manufacturers' logos is an expensive investment.