So I wonder why this game is still delisted.

[Theron Nett]

Wasn't there a lawsuit in 2020 that basically stated that video game companies no longer needed to pay for licenses to put military vehicles and equipment in their games for it was a freedom of expression? Or was this only for US equipment?

[CLOAKER GAMING]

it wasnt for that... you see, this is a very old game and namco probably wanted to push sales for the next AC (AC7) so delisted

if you want it, get it on gee too ayy

[RedShocktrooper]

The game was delisted quite a while before that, and it's possible since the game is Japanese their version of the law would take precedence.

[SlyAceZeta]

The lawsuit you're talking about was AM Gen. LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., filed in 2017 in the Southern District of New York (a federal U.S. court) with a decision handed down in 2020. AM General owns Humvees and they sued Activision Blizzard for infringing on their trademark (not copyright, there's a difference) by including Humvees in Call of Duty games without permission. District court Judge George Daniels ruled that Call of Duty simply featuring Humvees in the games is not trademark infringement because it's used, as you said, Theron, simply for artistic expression to enhance realism. It's not like Activision Blizzard was selling games purely based on the Humvee brand.

Note that last sentence. A huge part of why Activision Blizzard won that lawsuit is because Humvees are featured in Call of Duty to enhance realism (after all, Call of Duty takes place in our world) but they are not a central focus of the games. As The Verge put it,[www.theverge.com] they "serve a purpose beyond simply trading on the Humvee brand." The Humvee trademark was not central to the games.

The same cannot be said for Ace Combat, where the aircraft are center stage. A lot of the aircraft 3D designs and their names ("Raptor", "Black Widow", "Lightning II", etc.) are trademarked just like Humvee is, but they have a lot more importance to Ace Combat's gameplay, featuring very heavily in promotional material and advertising to players. People don't buy Call of Duty in order to drive Humvees, but people do buy Ace Combat for the chance to fly an A-10.

Bandai Namco Studios has prided themselves on their relationships with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force and western air forces including the U.S. Air Force, as well as the aircraft companies including Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. Starting with AC04, Bandai Namco has licensed and gotten permission for most of the featured aircraft in the games, and it's part of that huge copyright message at the start of the games since ACE5. When those permissions expire, those games can no longer be sold, but that was never a problem because the games wouldn't be on shelves by the time that happened--until now, with digital games.

Assault Horizon was taken down from digital storefronts exactly 5 years after its release (2016 on PS3 and 360, 2018 on PC because it released a couple years later) which is a very clear indication that Bandai Namco had a five-year licensing agreement for the trademarks in AH. They could have easily renewed their agreement, but clearly they determined that the cost of renewing those agreements would not be recouped by how few sales the game was getting, so the plug was pulled.

Note, this is also why ACE5 and ACE6 were offered as pre-order bonuses for ACE7 pre-orders on console, but only as pre-order bonuses, because selling them would require renewing those trademarks again, for the aircraft and anything else (note Puddle of Mudd music in ACE5's soundtrack).

tl;dr Trademark law is complicated and Bandai Namco wants to avoid any potential problems at all costs.

[CLOAKER GAMING]

Originally posted by SlyCooperFan1:

The lawsuit you're talking about was AM Gen. LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., filed in 2017 in the Southern District of New York (a federal U.S. court) with a decision handed down in 2020. AM General owns Humvees and they sued Activision Blizzard for infringing on their trademark (not copyright, there's a difference) by including Humvees in Call of Duty games without permission. District court Judge George Daniels ruled that Call of Duty simply featuring Humvees in the games is not trademark infringement because it's used, as you said, Theron, simply for artistic expression to enhance realism. It's not like Activision Blizzard was selling games purely based on the Humvee brand.

Note that last sentence. A huge part of why Activision Blizzard won that lawsuit is because Humvees are featured in Call of Duty to enhance realism (after all, Call of Duty takes place in our world) but they are not a central focus of the games. As The Verge put it,[www.theverge.com] they "serve a purpose beyond simply trading on the Humvee brand." The Humvee trademark was not central to the games.

The same cannot be said for Ace Combat, where the aircraft are center stage. A lot of the aircraft 3D designs and their names ("Raptor", "Black Widow", "Lightning II", etc.) are trademarked just like Humvee is, but they have a lot more importance to Ace Combat's gameplay, featuring very heavily in promotional material and advertising to players. People don't buy Call of Duty in order to drive Humvees, but people do buy Ace Combat for the chance to fly an A-10.

Bandai Namco Studios has prided themselves on their relationships with the Japan Air Self-Defense Force and western air forces including the U.S. Air Force, as well as the aircraft companies including Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. Starting with AC04, Bandai Namco has licensed and gotten permission for most of the featured aircraft in the games, and it's part of that huge copyright message at the start of the games since ACE5. When those permissions expire, those games can no longer be sold, but that was never a problem because the games wouldn't be on shelves by the time that happened--until now, with digital games.

Assault Horizon was taken down from digital storefronts exactly 5 years after its release (2016 on PS3 and 360, 2018 on PC because it released a couple years later) which is a very clear indication that Bandai Namco had a five-year licensing agreement for the trademarks in AH. They could have easily renewed their agreement, but clearly they determined that the cost of renewing those agreements would not be recouped by how few sales the game was getting, so the plug was pulled.

Note, this is also why ACE5 and ACE6 were offered as pre-order bonuses for ACE7 pre-orders on console, but only as pre-order bonuses, because selling them would require renewing those trademarks again, for the aircraft and anything else (note Puddle of Mudd music in ACE5's soundtrack).

tl;dr Trademark law is complicated and Bandai Namco wants to avoid any potential problems at all costs.

Doesnt that mean that they renewed for Ace7 then? Im no laws expert so i dont know how this all would work. But the license would have had to be renewed for that. Unless it was renewed for Ace7 only then they couldve probably relist Assault Horizon

[SlyAceZeta]

Originally posted by CLOAKER GAMING:

Doesnt that mean that they renewed for Ace7 then? Im no laws expert so i dont know how this all would work. But the license would have had to be renewed for that. Unless it was renewed for Ace7 only then they couldve probably relist Assault Horizon

They don't have catch-all license agreements for their entire catalog. Such agreements are likely insanely expensive, and not that many Ace Combat games are actively on sale right now. Instead, they license them on a game-by-game basis. They did need new agreements for ACE7, you're right, but the agreements for AH were separate, as were the agreements for ACE6, the agreements for ACE5, etc. etc.