Quote: Kirl wrote:I'll echo what ibebrett said.
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?
Product placement is an advertising tactic. For example, the appearance of Converse shoes in the film I, Robot was product placement. The advertiser pays for the placement. Always. Licensing is a matter of legal compliance. For example, the use of characters from a protected work of fiction in an original story would be preceded by licensing. The licensor grants the right of use to the licensee per the terms of their agreement. The licensee usually pays the licensor.
While the lines might seem blurry in certain scenarios, they're not.
If you're Blizzard Entertainment and you want introduce Sprite into the World of Warcraft economy, you would have the clout to make a strong case for Coca-Cola to pay for the placement of the product and everything else that entails (e.g., development, publicity campaign.) If you're an unproven developer employing unproven talent to serve the needs of an unproven market, and you wanted to develop a boxing game in which Mickey Mouse is a playable fighter, you'd be forced to pursue the licensing route with Disney because their property, especially Mickey, is worth more than your organization—and possibly your soul—in any currency.
Quote: dashurc wrote:If the lawyers are making deals, then something's terribly wrong with the organization.
Any licensing/advertising deal is to be worked out by the lawyers of the interested parties.
