JoeDamage 10 Posted October 10, 2013 Hi, What influence does BIS's affiliation/ownership of VBS have over the kind of content and technology included in Arma. I understand that they are essentially developed as separate entities... but does BIS's military/commercial client base have any influnce on the Arma content.... for instance... would BIS be prevented from including politically sensitive content in the game if one of it's customers objected? And of course, to what degree does BIS take it upon itself to prevent this kind of potential conflict of interest when it chooses its content? On a related note, is BIS legally prevented from using brand names of weapons systems, as opposed to military designations, which I assume cannot be trademarks? In the past the weapons systems in Arma have all been pretty clearly real world, including their military designations. My question really serves to answer whether all the content for Arma, going forward, is going to be deliberately abstracted to avoid conflicts of interest with clients and the possible legal consquences of using brand names. I would imagine using designations should still be possible? Regards Joedamage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted October 10, 2013 Hi,What influence does BIS's affiliation/ownership of VBS have over the kind of content and technology included in Arma. I understand that they are essentially developed as separate entities... but does BIS's military/commercial client base have any influnce on the Arma content.... for instance... would BIS be prevented from including politically sensitive content in the game if one of it's customers objected? And of course, to what degree does BIS take it upon itself to prevent this kind of potential conflict of interest when it chooses its content? On a related note, is BIS legally prevented from using brand names of weapons systems, as opposed to military designations, which I assume cannot be trademarks? In the past the weapons systems in Arma have all been pretty clearly real world, including their military designations. My question really serves to answer whether all the content for Arma, going forward, is going to be deliberately abstracted to avoid conflicts of interest with clients and the possible legal consquences of using brand names. I would imagine using designations should still be possible? BISimulation is a separate company run by separate staff. Technology is exchanged but from what has been said about it, it needs to be agreed on on an executive level. Since VBS is a separate product developed by a separate company I doubt there can be any real influence on the content of ArmA. No, they are not. As ArmA is a military game I don't think that brand names are really much of a problem since as you said they cannot effectively be protected by copyright as they are often too generic. The semi-futuristic setting of ArmA3 is to enable BIS to have more artistic freedom. Also the Armaverse is a parallel universe that separated from our own during the Soviet invasion of Nogova in 1982 so there has never really been a potential for sensitive content besides the previous Greek tragedy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xyberviri 1 Posted October 11, 2013 All companies get intellectual property protect including weapons manufactures and vehicle makers. The Kamaz is a real company that makes trucks out of russia so BI can't use the name in game. Just like they can't include products that have specific manufacturers names on them. The reasons are those IP owners don't want their IP looking like crap in a game compared to the real life counter part because it might damage the image in some way, they also frown upon companies making money off of their image when they haven't been paid a licensing fee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sealife 22 Posted October 11, 2013 What influence does BIS's affiliation/ownership of VBS have over the kind of content and technology included in Arma less and less , like all companies involved in international markets that need investments to grow ,these assets decisions are probably not influenced by single CEO decision anymore but must report to Private equity investors and get consents from many people . for instance i believe Riverside have some sway now with this particular branch of Bohemia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites