JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Electronic Arts drops gunmakers, not guns

Date

Malathi Nayak

Zoom in on this story. Explore all there is to know.

Electronic Arts says it will no longer ask firearms manufacturers for permission to use their gun designs in its games.

Electronic Arts says it will no longer ask firearms manufacturers for permission to use their gun designs in its games.

In the midst of the bitter debate on gun violence in the US, gun manufacturers and video game makers are delicately navigating one of the more peculiar relationships in business.

Violent first-person shooter games such as Call of Duty are the bread and butter of leading video game publishers, and authenticity all but requires that they feature brand-name weapons.

Electronic Arts licensed weapons from companies such as McMillan Group as part of a marketing collaboration for Medal of Honour: Warfighter. Activision Blizzard gives "special thanks" to Colt, Barrett and Remington in the credits for its Call of Duty titles.

Rifles by Bushmaster, which made the gun used in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting in December, have appeared in the hugely popular Call of Duty.

Yet, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, the biggest advocate for gun ownership, the National Rifle Association (NRA), took aim at video games to explain gun violence. One week after 20 schoolchildren and six adults were killed in the shooting, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre called the video game industry "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people".

Now at least one game maker, the second largest by revenue in the United States, is publicly distancing itself from the gun industry, even as it finds ways to keep the branded guns in the games. Electronic Arts says it is severing its licensing ties to gun manufacturers – and simultaneously asserting that it has the right, and the intention, to continue to feature branded guns without a licence.

For the gunmakers, having their products in games is "free marketing, just like having Coca-Cola" in a movie, said Roxanne Christ, a partner at Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles, who works with video game companies on licensing, but has not personally done a gun deal.

Yet it is also a virtual double-edged sword. "It gives publicity to the particular brand of gun being used in the video game," said Brad J Bushman, a professor at Ohio State University who has studied video game violence. "On the other hand, it's linking that gun with violent and aggressive behaviour."

Gun makers, including the Freedom Group that owns brands such as Remington and Bushmaster, and the NRA, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

'Enhanced authenticity'

First-person shooter games let players blast their way through battlefields while looking down the barrel of a virtual gun, taking aim with the flick of a controller.

Some of those guns – such as the Colt M1911 pistol in Call of Duty – turn sideways to face the screen during reloading, revealing the brand name. Games also offer lists of branded weapons to choose from.

Licensed images of weapons in Medal of Honour: Warfighter – a game that simulates military missions such as fighting pirates in Somalia – offer what EA spokesman Jeff Brown calls "enhanced authenticity."

Back in the late '90s, video game makers initially approached gun companies for licences to inoculate themselves from potential lawsuits, industry lawyers say. Over the years, legal clearances were granted for little or no money by gunmakers, the lawyers said.

Yet overt signs of co-operation between the video game and gun industries had begun to draw criticism even before the December school shooting in Connecticut.

In August, game fans and some video game news outlets vehemently objected to EA putting links to weapons companies such as the McMillan Group and gun magazine maker Magpul, where gamers could check out real versions of weapons featured in the game, on its Medal of Honour: Warfighter game website.

"What kind of message is a video game publisher like EA sending when it encourages its players to buy weapons?" asked Laura Parker, the associate editor of gaming site GameSpot Australia in a post in August.

EA immediately removed the links and dropped the marketing tie-up, which it said was part of a charity project to raise money for military veterans. The company said it received no money from its gun company partners.

"We won't do that again," said Brown. "The action games we will release this year will not include licensed images of weapons."

EA said politics and NRA comments critical of game makers had nothing to do with its decision. "The response from our audience was pretty clear: they feel the comments from the NRA were a simple attempt to change the subject," Brown said.

EA also said video game makers can have branded guns in their games without getting licences, meaning the industry could drop the gun companies and keep their guns.

Activision, the industry leader, declined to comment on whether it licenses gun designs from gun manufacturers or if it would stop doing so. Branded guns have consistently been featured in its blockbuster shooter games such as the decade-old Call of Duty.

"We're telling a story and we have a point of view," said EA's president of labels Frank Gibeau, who leads product development of EA's biggest franchises. "A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt', for example."

Put another way, EA is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games.

Legal experts say there isn't a single case so far where gun companies have sued video game companies for using branded guns without a licence.

But EA's legal theory is now being tested in court. Aircraft maker Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron, has argued that Electronic Arts' depiction of its helicopters in Battlefield was beyond fair use and amounted to a trademark infringement. EA pre-emptively went to court, suing Bell Helicopter to settle the issue.

The US District Court, Northern District of California, has set a jury trial for the case in June.

Reuters

Advertisement
Featured advertisers
Advertisement