Jump to content

New liveries and sponsors

Recommended Posts

On 9/18/2020 at 12:02 AM, TheEmpireWasRight said:

Then why is Singha in the F1 2020 game? (FYI: Singha is a Thai beer brand, visible on the Alfa Romeo livery)

 

As a matter of fact, Singha has been in the game for a few years already. Also, on the PS3 / XBox360 F1 games by Codemasters, we also got Kingfisher back in the days.

 

Seems as if it probably boils down to Codemasters budget, and the creative decision to not make these sponsors available for all, as some countries have a total ban for alcohol or tobacco sponsors. (Which is, on the one hand, understandable, in the way that Codemasters are saving time and effort as well as keeping their budget low. And on the other hand, not understandable, because there is no technical limitation in terms of getting the licence, as everything can be bought at the right price; Not to mention, that Codemasters could easily create a specific update file of the liveries for countries that disallow these sponsorships, whilst everyone else gets the full experience in the vanilla game. Just as in EA's sports games, which are known for this little gimmick.).

 

Either way, i hope that in the near future, Codemasters will start giving more attention to the official sponsorships, in order to increase immersion and realism by another notch.

 

PS: Speaking of EA's sports games, they are running Heineken, Carlsberg, Estrella Galicia, as well as several "betting" sponsors on their games since 2009, IIRC. Ironically, these sports games are all rated "PEGI 3"...

So, you'll sacrifice exposing young players to alcohol and betting companies, for your greater 'immersion' & 'realism'? 

Oh, and I'm not sure EA can be held up as any kind of ethical model to be followed. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, amazingblaze said:

So, you'll sacrifice exposing young players to alcohol and betting companies, for your greater 'immersion' & 'realism'? 

Yes we do! :classic_biggrin:

Não aguenta, bebe leite!

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, amazingblaze said:

exposing young players to alcohol and betting companies

No kid can be influenced by it. This is life. Depravity is on every corner.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sergey_blackbird said:

No kid can be influenced by it. This is life. Depravity is on every corner.

Ah, a responsible society. I see. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, amazingblaze said:

So, you'll sacrifice exposing young players to alcohol and betting companies, for your greater 'immersion' & 'realism'? 

Oh, and I'm not sure EA can be held up as any kind of ethical model to be followed. 

That is a flawed idea of how children perceive reality.

 

With that logic, kids should not be allowed to watch F1 at all. Neither on TV, livestreams, YouTube, Social Media or even at the live GP event on trackside. Because, then, these kids would get to see ALL the sponsors, uncensored and on full display.

 

And we would not want that, right?!

 

To double down on that, kids should not be allowed to watch any sports, any TV shows, Movies, or consume any type of media, because it might have "questionable" sponsors, or even "suggestive themes", in them.

 

Why stop here?! Might as well go the extra route and make sure that kids are not allowed to walk around the earth freely, without any guardians protecting them at all times. Kids need to be sheltered away from reality. Why not put blindfolds onto them?

 

Or, if we want to be extra careful, why not ban all these sponsors or companies in the real world? So, no beer brands, no betting companies, no tobacco brands, no adultwork companies, no credit companies etc. etc. etc.

 

Either way, jokes aside, it is a fact that other PEGI 3 rated games do show these type of sponsors, and have been doing so for years. So, Codemasters could do the same, if they wanted to.

 

All other types of media (from digital, to printed), make full use of any type of depiction of reality. Videogames should not be excluded, from the overall experience of realism and immersion.

 

(Also, i agree, EA are scumbags. Especially with their exploitation of power, their predatory business models, as well as the unbridled affinity to overly exhaust their staff into heavy "crunchwork", whilst destroying multiple gamestudios over and over again.)

Edited by TheEmpireWasRight
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheEmpireWasRight said:

Extreme Rant

Wow. Thats... extreme.

So just because things were done before, they can still be done today? Society has progressed (mostly).

Cigarette money has been banned from F1. Alcohol advertising has been banned in some countries. 

Even up till the late 80s/early 90s, 'cigarette' sweets were being sold. Candy cigarettes, i think they were called. Weirdly, they are banned. Alcopops got banned in the UK as they were aimed at teenagers wanted to drink alcohol. 

Companies now have a social responsibility. And why would CM limit their market to 18+? Its all the kids that buy all them sweet sweet liveries/suits with (their parents) real moneyz. 

How about CM reintroduce actual slavery, since that was fine 100 years ago?

Times have to move on.

As an FYI, I started watching F1 when I was a teenager. I had no idea what Rothmans or Marlborough was back then. But then again no interwebs to do a search as you can do today.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has already been said, the argument that they can't be sheltered from everything in all forms of media, does not mean we should just open the doors to everything, because, hey, why bother? I'm busy bringing up my 2 teenagers to not be peer pressured into gambling, nor alcohol, nor tobacco, despite my indulging in the latter two. Who knows, perhaps I wouldn't have got into those if I wasn't seeing JPS Lotus, Marlboro McClaren and the rest throughout the 70s. There's no way to prove or disprove either way, but limiting exposure has to be the better way. This doesn't absolve parental responsibility ; just an extra tool. 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is great and by all means should be pushed further, but I think it is slightly off the mark. 

Policy makers > regulatory bodies > stakeholders > publishers > developers

This is a helluva topic to buzz the ears of policy makers and regulatory agencies like the ERSB. The system is riddled with inconsistencies and detached from reality in more ways than one. Obviously the influence media has on the mind of minors is not to be downplayed, with a significant role in social values and ethics that are transmitted to the young ones, but it's not like seeing a beverage sponsor on the bodywork of a car or on a billboard will automatically transform them into alcoholics.

However we're dealing with the other end of the ladder here. The goalposts are differently position and proportioned in this case.

I truly believe CM wouldn't want to nudge minors into smoking and binge drinking, but I'd also wager they would like their games to be as realistic as possible. No sponsor logos left behind.

And I'm quite convinced that they don't so for the morality of the matter, but for having to abide by a few performance metrics that publishers and investors lay down to them when banking the development of a game, as well as the portrayal of other stakeholders interests like brand image and so on. On the latter, aside from the regulatory bodies - and consequently the respective regulations - not being the same, a Estrela Garcia logo on a 2h sporting event so contradictory that could simultaneously lullaby babies to peaceful slumber while having adults loudly cursing and cussing Grosjean doesn't carry the same meaning to a raging helicopter Karen at the storefront of a gamestop "you mean my little angle can be exposed to this kind of malicious marketing?! I'm calling my 70 years old lawyer, young man!"

There's a (pre)perceived market value for games with this or that ESRB rating and this is unfortunately key when securing investments and negotiating licenses. By the way that's the same reason why it is not a 1:1 fair comparison to bring EA or different companies and games into the discussion as they all have different stakes and circumstances to deal with, from more easily available resources to wiggle room with regulatory agencies.

This is not a defense of CM's conduct. It is just a plea for not seeing "well they must be stupid for having McLaren so nude and barren for fear of brainwashing children" on this kind of thread as that is evidently not the case.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, I really don't care about this.

I don't believe including the sponsors would destroy families but I'm okay with Codies omitting them just to be safe (or for whatever other reason).

The only thing I'm annoyed at TBH is dshepsman's post:

ban-all-the-18a143720d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I wanted to ban everything. I’m just saying that I understand why certain things are omitted from the game. 
Why do so many people leap to extremes?

And where is the common sense, and understanding these days? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dshepsman said:

I never said I wanted to ban everything. I’m just saying that I understand why certain things are omitted from the game. 
Why do so many people leap to extremes?

And where is the common sense, and understanding these days? 

Chill. I just amplified your opinion a bit so I could use my meme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×