Question on official licenses

[Blade1568]

I was wanting to know on the extent of the brand licenses, like caseih and new holland are under the same company as CNH. But there has been many brands bought till now and there in lies the question are the companies that have been bought are licensed because of having the company that bought them. Such as International Harvester, farmall, ford, and many others on the agco side. This would open up the older tractors in America that are no longer around and available to console players not just pc.

Edit don_apple: moved from german to english section.

[J Walker]

The licens its not for a brand, it's for a model of a brand.

[redglasses]

Unfortunately thats kind of where a grey area appears

[cmdrbyron]

The license its not for a brand, it's for a model of a brand.

This is probably the easiest way to understand IP licensing in this situation. Many people assume that just because Item A appears in-game, that anything else related to Item A, whether by appearance, function, or manufacturer is now "fair-game". This is an erroneous assumption that leads to a significant amount of frustration within the community.

As well, not all IP licensing agreements will necessarily be the same, even with the same company, or even a renewal/refresh of an existing agreement!

I suspect this issue will re-appear in force as we get closer to release, as more and more people wonder why Item B, C, D... ZZZZZ are not in-game, when they see something else appear in-game that is (in their mind) similar. So I will add this as well:

The reason why consoles are more restricted than PC when it comes to mods is due to the fact that Giants are the only ones able to upload mods for consoles. As such, they are bound by IP Laws and the terms and conditions of their respective licensing agreements, because they stand to gain financially from the product.

Because mods can be created, distributed, downloaded, and installed on PC without any involvement from Giants, PC is not as restrictive.

We will almost certainly never be privy to the full details of the individual IP licensing agreements in place between Giants and the equipment manufacturers, so we will never know in entirety what IP can and cannot be introduced to the game, independent of the decisions made by Giants for which elements they choose to include or exclude or the basis upon which such decisions are made (though cost is usually a significant factor).

Finally - It's just a game. Let's be thankful for the awesome content that we will soon be able to experience, and most importantly, to and HAVE FUN!

[BulletBill]

With regards Brand licencing and what appears ingame it is almost always the choice of the manufacturer what models are ingame not GIANTS.

Plus GIANTS have to balance out the vehicles and equipment so we don't have too many different brand vehicles rivaling each other ingame.

[BreadedVirus]

As long as the CASE IH Puma is in the game...I’m good.

[parad0x177]

The licenses are simply a form of business contract. As such, the terms of the contract can consist of as much or as little as the parties agree upon. One of the terms of those agreements is very likely to be not to disclose the details of the agreement without the express consent of all parties. It may be for any and all products under the brand, it may be for a specific one or ones. It may be only for FS19, or it may be for some set number of years. It could literally be anything you can think of.

So, in short, there is no way to know what is covered by the various agreements between Giants and the various manufacturers. It is also unreasonable to expect them to divulge those details.

All that in mind, it’s probably best to just be grateful for whatever they are able to include and look forward to what the mod community can bring to the table.

[BigC92]

^ that's exactly right, we dont know what goes on behind closed doors, nor do we really need to know, its top secret, if a Giants employee tells you, they might have to kill you... Only kidding, but as everyone said, just be greatful for what we get, along with mods of those brands.

[TacoFarmer]

if a Giants employee tells you, they might have to kill you...

They could try.

[gmfarmer420]

The only way we are really going to know if anything is covered under license agreements is to wait and see what they end up letting get released.

[BigC92]

if a Giants employee tells you, they might have to kill you...

They could try.

You said it!

[texasplowboy]

I know most believe that Giants pays for every single license. And they may. But from someone who knows something about this its not that often a company buys such license. Many company's will give"free" licenses just for the advertisement value. I know that many will say that FS doesn't have that big of a base, the game itself. During these game expos like E3 and such, we saw a John Deere tractor. That right there gave JD adverting power. The advertising power may be seen as a tractor to some, but its that name that its acosiated with everything from a lawn mower to a combine.

[cmdrbyron]

Unfortunately, we will never know the full details surrounding the nature/scope/details of the licensing agreements between Giants and the OEMs.

As for your statement

its not that often a company buys such license

that is a very dangerous statement to make, as you cannot assume that just because this may be the case in your experiences, it does not mean you can apply it here. In my world, the opposite holds true, where everyone wants to ensure they are getting compensated "fairly" for use of their IP, and such "free use" licenses are avoided at all costs due to the liability associated with them (on the part of both parties) due to the ambiguity inherent to any binding agreement that does not entail a direct cost / benefit metric.

Independent of whether or not there is any direct financial remuneration in such agreements, there are likely caveats and restrictions regarding Giant's ability to employ/leverage the IP. Even if they don't pay a cent for using JD's IP, I highly doubt it translates into "use it as you please". Furthermore, if Giants isn't compensating JD financially, that likely imposes other requirements on them (which may also exist if they are compensating them financially, albeit to a lesser extent), such as exposure, presentation and representation. I highly recommend reading some of the more authoritative literature (and not just the first google result) available regarding the intricacies and nuances surrounding IP licenses that came to light with the release of Gran Turismo V, which brought a lot surrounding IP licensing "into the light".

[texasplowboy]

Unfortunately, we will never know the full details surrounding the nature/scope/details of the licensing agreements between Giants and the OEMs.

As for your statement

its not that often a company buys such license

that is a very dangerous statement to make, as you cannot assume that just because this may be the case in your experiences, it does not mean you can apply it here. In my world, the opposite holds true, where everyone wants to ensure they are getting compensated "fairly" for use of their IP, and such "free use" licenses are avoided at all costs due to the liability associated with them (on the part of both parties) due to the ambiguity inherent to any binding agreement that does not entail a direct cost / benefit metric.

Independent of whether or not there is any direct financial remuneration in such agreements, there are likely caveats and restrictions regarding Giant's ability to employ/leverage the IP. Even if they don't pay a cent for using JD's IP, I highly doubt it translates into "use it as you please". Furthermore, if Giants isn't compensating JD financially, that likely imposes other requirements on them (which may also exist if they are compensating them financially, albeit to a lesser extent), such as exposure, presentation and representation. I highly recommend reading some of the more authoritative literature (and not just the first google result) available regarding the intricacies and nuances surrounding IP licenses that came to light with the release of Gran Turismo V, which brought a lot surrounding IP licensing "into the light".

If a opinion is dangerous on a game forum, God help us all!
The term assume, is taken out of context and is a opinion. I plainly stated they may be paying for the licenses. I also explained how JD would beneficent (advertisement, in case you didn't understand). As far as giants getting paid/making money, I didn't want to spell it out for obvious reasons.

Edit don_apple: fixed quoting. Btw. is it really necessary to quote if you are replying to the post right before you?

[niggle44]

Also remember that manufacturers may not want their older equipment in game as they want a "show-case" / advertisement for their latest / best stuff. why would NH want the full range of Ford tractors available (on console) as this would perhaps diminish use of the T5/T6/T7/T8/T9 - personally would be using the TW and FW range instead.


For the majority of manufacturers and their licensing this is not about player enjoyment its about money and IP rights.