• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

One World Trade Center has been removed from Spider-Man PS4

VulcanRaven

Member
I think this deserves its own thread. It appears that One World Trade Center (Freedom Tower) has been removed from the game. It has appeared in many trailers and gameplay videos but it has been replaced with some other building in recent trailers. It was actually the first thing we saw in the 2016 reveal trailer. It is the tallest building in New York so I was really hoping that it would be in the game. I wonder why they had to remove it? It seems like they had permission to use it before. I think it is a bit ridiculous that you need a license to use real life buildings in a game. They can use Empire State Building but not this for some reason. What you guys think about this? I remember many people saying that Ubisoft couldn't use Empire State Bulding in The Divison.

KEy04FADmcOp2pHhcIDflzU-WRZvfZP0mwf6KH13LLo.png
 
Last edited:

888

Member
Damn. I really dig the new tower. Loved seeing it while I was there last month. Was hoping to see it in Spidey.
 

Grinchy

Banned
I had no idea you could control the likeness of a building in a videogame.

Can they stop a movie from showing the building? Does it cost money to get the rights to blow up a miniature of the white house like in Independence Day? Can you not sell a painting of the Freedom Tower? Depicting a building doesn't seem like something that you should need the "rights" to.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I had no idea you could control the likeness of a building in a videogame.

Can they stop a movie from showing the building? Does it cost money to get the rights to blow up a miniature of the white house like in Independence Day? Can you not sell a painting of the Freedom Tower? Depicting a building doesn't seem like something that you should need the "rights" to.

But you do, especially if the rights are owned. Same thing happens with sports stadiums and the like, you need a license for use in media.
 

CJY

Banned
The lights of the Eiffel Tower are also copyrighted. You can’t sell photos of the Eiffel Tower at night.
 

HyGogg

Banned
That's extremely bizarre that they'd want to control such a thing. And why would you want it cut out of a huge game like Spider-Man?
 

Redshirt

Banned
Maybe Sony will sell it as DLC... :pie_fwt:

Odd, but there hasn't be a definitive statement, right?

This came up a while back too, and I'm pretty sure Insomniac said not to read too much into it.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
I had no idea you could control the likeness of a building in a videogame.

Can they stop a movie from showing the building? Does it cost money to get the rights to blow up a miniature of the white house like in Independence Day? Can you not sell a painting of the Freedom Tower? Depicting a building doesn't seem like something that you should need the "rights" to.
I remember some case about Naughtydog and a map of the sewers of Boston? They had to remove it because of licensing.
 

MayauMiao

Member
That's extremely bizarre that they'd want to control such a thing. And why would you want it cut out of a huge game like Spider-Man?

Money. I watched this documentary that mention how you cannot simply take footage of the HOLLYWOOD sign and use it for a tv show without paying some royalty.
 

ruvikx

Banned
Seems strange for a game with free roaming to remove the freedom tower. Or not.

In all seriousness though its omission (for whatever reason) is stupid & detrimental to the cityscape in the game. It's also detrimental to the city of New York as well, i.e. its landmarks gained notoriety around the world in memorable pop culture oeuvres (i.e. a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State building). So what better advertising than a Marvel video game?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Seems strange for a game with free roaming to remove the freedom tower. Or not.

In all seriousness though its omission (for whatever reason) is stupid & detrimental to the cityscape in the game. It's also detrimental to the city of New York as well, i.e. its landmarks gained notoriety around the world in memorable pop culture oeuvres (i.e. a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State building). So what better advertising than a Marvel video game?

That is not how advertisement works, unfortunately. Logically you wold think, "Why would Coca Cola be pissy for having a can shown on one of the most popular sitcoms, and why do they put gaffer tape over some products?" "It is free advertisement!" Answer, you did not pay right to use the product. It is whack, but that is how it has been for a bit now. And then there is product placement contracts which are another can of worms.
 
Last edited:

Skyfox

Member
I’d have preferred if they didn’t have to change it but now I think the fictional building looks better.

If you don’t want people to see your building then don’t build it.
 

ruvikx

Banned
That is not how advertisement works, unfortunately. Logically you wold think, "Why would Coca Cola be pissy for having a can shown on one of the most popular sitcoms, and why do they put gaffer tape over some products?" "It is free advertisement!" Answer, you did not pay right to use the product. It is whack, but that is how it has been for a bit now. And then there is product placement contracts which are another can of worms.

Right, but when we're talking about actual buildings I feel it's a can of worms which leads to farcical situations. I'm pretty certain New York (& its buildings) always used to be part of a single package of sorts delivered to the content creators once they've secured the initial rights (whether for filming or making a video game or other). Sure, certain brands & adverts seen within the cityscape often have to be removed (or added), but to remove actual buildings? Especially one of the most famous? That's something I've rarely seen happen.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Right, but when we're talking about actual buildings I feel it's a can of worms which leads to farcical situations. I'm pretty certain New York (& its buildings) always used to be part of a single package of sorts delivered to the content creators once they've secured the initial rights (whether for filming or making a video game or other). Sure, certain brands & adverts seen within the cityscape often have to be removed (or added), but to remove actual buildings? Especially one of the most famous? That's something I've rarely seen happen.

It is not unheard of nowadays. I go back to the sports stadium reference. They are every bit a part of a cityscape, even if you remove the brand names/adverts, etc., you still need to license the stadium, old and new to use in media. We are living more and more in a time where everything has a cost of use. They would not remove this otherwise, unless it was either licensing or a request.
 
Last edited:

ruvikx

Banned
It is not unheard of nowadays. I go back to the sports stadium reference. They are every bit a part of a cityscape, even if you remove the brand names/adverts, etc., you still need to license the stadium, old and new to use in media. We are living more and more in a time where everything has a cost of use. They would not remove this otherwise, unless it was either licensing or a request.

I remember the old PES games 15 years ago which had none of the naming rights to any of the stadiums, yet the actual stadiums themselves were perfectly recreated (well, as best they could) based upon how the real life version looked. If this Freedom Tower situation is the future (& gets worse), we should get ready for some rather funky versions of major cities in movies & games in which real stuff is altered to the point of disfiguring the entire locale.

This is where Batman & Superman (for example) win, i.e. at least they're in full control of the location design (Christopher Nolan had 'fun' chopping Chicago into pieces & assembling its landmarks with other places in his Batman movies).
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I remember the old PES games 15 years ago which had none of the naming rights to any of the stadiums, yet the actual stadiums themselves were perfectly recreated (well, as best they could) based upon how the real life version looked. If this Freedom Tower situation is the future (& gets worse), we should get ready for some rather funky versions of major cities in movies & games in which real stuff is altered to the point of disfiguring the entire locale.

This is where Batman & Superman (for example) win, i.e. at least they're in full control of the location design (Christopher Nolan had 'fun' chopping Chicago into pieces & assembling its landmarks with other places in his Batman movies).

Oh I remember a ton of sports games where it was the "Wild West" over a decade ago. Then the College Football/Retired Pros started suing EA for likenesses, and it all started to stem from there. License holders started paying attention more to their IP rights, since they at one time did not take gaming seriously. Now that it is mainstream and pulls Hollywood numbers and appeal in the mainstream, they started tightening down on them more and more.

This comes from spending time at SD Studios with MLB The Show on the licensing end of things. I seen first hand how much "red tape" there is now, even when it comes to them having to alter specific things in the stadiums themselves due to the items being owned by another IP and nothing to do with the Stadium itself. Then licensing for the "legacy/classic" stadiums are expensive, some much more than others, hence why till this day certain classics are not included.

It has improved since (the in-stadium mock adverts), but back almost 10 years ago when all of this was getting locked down, they dared not even flirt with the typical "no more than two thirds accurate likeness" barometer. They just stone cold stayed away. It is refershing to see now they have a better grasp and a lot of the mock adverts are so close to the real ones, but a good 1/3 off to not get into legal trouble.
 
Last edited:

dirthead

Banned
I'm so bored of this shit. AAA games aren't cool anymore. They were when games were still simple enough for a dozen dudes in a small office to make something bleeding edge, but it's over now. The sweet spot for gaming really was the 90s. It was still simple enough for a small team to make the most advanced products, so you got the best of both worlds. Games made by people who actually played games, no laughable, design by committee gameplay, and so on.

If you actually want to play something awesome today, you're forced to turn to lower budget, smaller games. Nothing good can make it through the sanitizing filter of a huge corporation trying to appeal to soccer moms and grandpas.
 
Last edited:

TacosNSalsa

Member
I had no idea you could control the likeness of a building in a videogame.

Can they stop a movie from showing the building? Does it cost money to get the rights to blow up a miniature of the white house like in Independence Day? Can you not sell a painting of the Freedom Tower? Depicting a building doesn't seem like something that you should need the "rights" to.

http://www.esbnyc.com/business-esb/licensing/

That's the Empire State Building but still..I had no idea either .I thought maybe once they didn't use the name or something everything would be cool..now every movie I see that takes place in NY I'm going to be looking for landmarks or if they just flash by it real quick or something ..
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
http://www.esbnyc.com/business-esb/licensing/

That's the Empire State Building but still..I had no idea either .I thought maybe once they didn't use the name or something everything would be cool..now every movie I see that takes place in NY I'm going to be looking for landmarks or if they just flash by it real quick or something ..

I am sure movies also have contracts that date back far longer than gaming which allow for this to be more common.
 

Lastyou1

Banned
The design of some Buildings is copyrighted.
Even the Empire State Building looks slightly different.

On Reddit I found out that Insomniac used a variation of an unused alternative design for Freedom Tower, as the game were an alternative reality.
 
I'm so bored of this shit. AAA games aren't cool anymore. They were when games were still simple enough for a dozen dudes in a small office to make something bleeding edge, but it's over now. The sweet spot for gaming really was the 90s. It was still simple enough for a small team to make the most advanced products, so you got the best of both worlds. Games made by people who actually played games, no laughable, design by committee gameplay, and so on.

If you actually want to play something awesome today, you're forced to turn to lower budget, smaller games. Nothing good can make it through the sanitizing filter of a huge corporation trying to appeal to soccer moms and grandpas.

All this because of a building?!
 

VulcanRaven

Member
Seems strange for a game with free roaming to remove the freedom tower. Or not.

In all seriousness though its omission (for whatever reason) is stupid & detrimental to the cityscape in the game. It's also detrimental to the city of New York as well, i.e. its landmarks gained notoriety around the world in memorable pop culture oeuvres (i.e. a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State building). So what better advertising than a Marvel video game?
Yeah I don't understand why they wouldn't allow them to use it. People around the world would see the building in the game.

It looked great in the 2016 reveal trailer:
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Last edited:

EDMIX

Banned
smh. Let gaming evolve as a medium folks. How many books, movies, shows etc you see doing this? Stop treating the medium like its only for kidz and allow it to be seen no different then other mediums.

So as for the "no politics in gaming" , get out of your feelings please. Don't like it, don't buy it. its how all mediums work and gaming needs to be no different. How many folks you hear say "no politics in movies?" lol aka please don't express beliefs different then my own. So its New York, let the building stay and if someone wants to get in their feelings, move on, play something else.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
smh. Let gaming evolve as a medium folks. How many books, movies, shows etc you see doing this? Stop treating the medium like its only for kidz and allow it to be seen no different then other mediums.

So as for the "no politics in gaming" , get out of your feelings please. Don't like it, don't buy it. its how all mediums work and gaming needs to be no different. How many folks you hear say "no politics in movies?" lol aka please don't express beliefs different then my own. So its New York, let the building stay and if someone wants to get in their feelings, move on, play something else.

I can agree with this. Politics in gaming narrative is fine. Forced biases/agenda, while I would still play, would make me cringe a little with it. Especially when it is emotionally led and not factually backed.

Maybe it had a Google watermark on it.

XS5LK.gif
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Banned
I can agree with this. Politics in gaming narrative is fine. Forced biases/agenda, while I would still play, would make me cringe a little with it. Especially when it is emotionally led and not factually backed.



XS5LK.gif

If someone thinks its forced, thats ok too, anyone is free to think that. I'd rather have lots of games where I disagree with the view of the person that made it, then publishers scared to let the developer express their ideas freely. That is just a double edge sword and hurts this medium more then helps.

Developers scared to put crosses in game, buildings lol. Treat it as they would ANY MEDIUM, let it happen and let gaming grow up for once as you never hear this type of talk about other mediums.

Think about it like this...a film with someone gay in it isn't going to be making Time Magazine cover and Good Morning America like "is this too far?" or "Gayz in movies, enough is enough" lol It just doesn't happen. The movie comes out, folks either watch or don't watch etc, gaming is getting to the point were people are trying to force the medium to avoid such things when it doesn't even make sense to try to hand hold.

Might as well say no guns, no blood, no bad words, is this really where we want gaming?

So I'd rather have a game chock full of views I disagree with, then a game censored to make folks feel good. For going to get there, folks need to respect that freedom of expression, even if its a view they don't agree with.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
If someone thinks its forced, thats ok too, anyone is free to think that. I'd rather have lots of games where I disagree with the view of the person that made it, then publishers scared to let the developer express their ideas freely. That is just a double edge sword and hurts this medium more then helps.

Developers scared to put crosses in game, buildings lol. Treat it as they would ANY MEDIUM, let it happen and let gaming grow up for once as you never hear this type of talk about other mediums.

Think about it like this...a film with someone gay in it isn't going to be making Time Magazine cover and Good Morning America like "is this too far?" or "Gayz in movies, enough is enough" lol It just doesn't happen. The movie comes out, folks either watch or don't watch etc, gaming is getting to the point were people are trying to force the medium to avoid such things when it doesn't even make sense to try to hand hold.

Might as well say no guns, no blood, no bad words, is this really where we want gaming?

So I'd rather have a game chock full of views I disagree with, then a game censored to make folks feel good. For going to get there, folks need to respect that freedom of expression, even if its a view they don't agree with.

I definitely agree. Creative freedoms, even if I do not always agree, I still respect the right and advocate for their expression. I am not the biggest fan of some of what I am hearing with Druckmann recently, however, I will play the fuck out of ND games due to their talent and creative freedom they bring to the industry. They are more than just one man/woman.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Banned
I definitely agree. Creative freedoms, even if I do not always agree, I still respect the right and advocate for their expression. I am not the biggest fan of some of what I am hearing with Druckmann recently, however, I will play the fuck out of ND games due to their talent and creative freedom they bring to the industry. They are more than just one man/woman.

10000% agreed.
 

Handy Fake

Member
I've got a feeling that this might be something to do with the fact that you can interact with it, it probably affects some part of any passive licensing.
I seem to recall the same thing happening in Infamous Second Son regarding not being able to climb to the top of the Space Needle. I also seem to recall it was because of suicides that have happened there in the past, although I may be wrong on that account.
 

Revolutionary

Gold Member
Wait, you're telling me that this fictionalized version of New York, complete with fake buildings like Oscorp, Stark and Avengers buildings (which replace real buildings FYI), isn't accurate? Why, I never! :p

Seriously though, this is a strange thing to get worked up over. But then again, this is the game where people are going crazy over a puddle so...
 

JaffeLion

Banned
damn, this game is getting worse and worse... first the graphic downgrade, then the greedy DLC, and now this. it really adds up. not going to buy this. vote with your wallet.
 
Top Bottom