I despise that licensing is a thing in video games. They're an art form and you should be able to depict whatever you want. I don't care if Porsche, John Deere or Sig Sauer get their feelings hurt because someone made art.
If you call something a Porsche, John Deere, or a Sig Sauer and inaccurately represent it you're doing brand damage especially in the modern era where it could become a toxic meme on TikTok or whatever.
That's no good and should be prevented.
Developers could pony up for perpetual licenses if they cared but they don't.
This is a thing dreamed up by IP lawyers to justify their own employment. Brands do far more damage to themselves by suing small companies than they could ever take from being represented in a work of art, even negatively.
It was always unpopular to be seen as a manipulator, the control freak who "manages" their image with punitive measures. But it has probably never been as unpopular as it is right now. John Deere would be more popular from tossing their brand management lawyers from the fifth floor than they would from listening to them.
The ONLY time a big brand has anything to complain about, is when they are said to have endorsed something they didn't.
I was under the impression that most gameplay scenarios are positive exposure for real-world brands. The kid who spends 500 hours of his childhood driving around specific cars in games is developing brand preferences before he ever steps foot in a dealership.
A smart brand would be eager to undercut their competitors for licensing-- even to the point of giving them away free, assuming the negotiate positive brand exposure.
I'm sure perp licences are more expensive, also nobody should be forbidden from using brands for artistic purposes. If a company licences the color "red" for their branding and it henceforth requires licencing for use they can shove that idea up their rear
That's no good and should be prevented.
Developers could pony up for perpetual licenses if they cared but they don't.