Bring back orginal gas stations

[GinXeng]

I like parodies in games like GTA, this is a step back for the game. And I hate to use MODs as I only play in convoy now.

@koolizz Your right, I think by always playing it "safe" they are holding themselves back on developing further.

[JoeAlex23]

And you still fail to see why SCS decided to do it, most people will never notice any real difference, so this is basically a pointless discussion, SCS already made the decision and it looks to be final.

[Calibuddy99]

@JoeAlex23 Yeah! I like these new ones anyways! Let's keep these new ones!

[GinXeng]

And you still fail to see why SCS decided to do it, most people will never notice any real difference, so this is basically a pointless discussion, SCS already made the decision and it looks to be final.

You dont get to decide what a pointless discussion in here, you are not the developer. We have these forums for discussions and opinions whether they make a difference or not.

[Rockatansky6]

How many lawsuits Rockstar hasn't received since GTA-SA until today, because of its parodies... The difference is that Rockstar has more lawyers and money than SCS. I prefer it the way it is.
And yes, this topic is very useless.

[JoeAlex23]

You dont get to decide what a pointless discussion in here, you are not the developer. We have these forums for discussions and opinions whether they make a difference or not.

Never claimed to be a developer, but i quoted the words of an actual developer on why they made that decision, but it's up to you to keep barking at the tree. Have a nice day.

[angrybirdseller]

I prefer the old fuel stations, but they probadly too close to real company. I already know old station branding are gone forever. Sure some companies may get replaced especially in IKA in ETS2.

[PBandJ]

I think it is very wise of them to go this route, one lawsuit carried out could ruin everything. It would not be a cheap experiment if they lost it. Now if one of you who wants the old back or SCS to just put real names in are willing to pay for attorney fees and penalties if they have any, SCS may think about it lol.

[oldmanclippy]

Still, its strange a franchise like GTA can get away for like 20 years with literally thousands of blatant copycat mimics of real world brands and logos and they do not appear to have to bend over to legal matters for this particular issue. I hardly think Rockstar have licenses for all brands they made blatant parodies of either and I don't think the size of the company matters either for something like this. And a lot of people dig that kind of blatant parody, although I'd agree it doesn't fit as well in a SCS game as in a tongue-in-cheek open world action game.

However, this is what does not make sense to me. Take a bigger studio and game like GTA that also contains violence, nudity and what not that SCS games don't feature, which becomes a much bigger liability in the legal world. That if anything should be a huge reason for lawsuits being thrown at Rockstar for copycat branding, no? Yet somehow I have never heard of something like that for either GTA or any smaller studio game that had parody branding. They only ever got into trouble over other matters with their games, for music or violence as an example.

Where I am getting at is, I wonder if this is part of the over-careful approach at SCS and by Pavel, of not bringing features or not keeping features that could theoretically somehow in some alternate universe risk legal trouble for SCS - or if there actually was legal trouble and they had to change it. While this in itself is not a big change that really affects the game that much, I wonder if being overly careful legally could prevent a developer to bring other interesting features, say for example damage or dirt and weathering to trucks and trailers, or something like physical tire damage. Beyond truck damage (which we probably can live without) I really hope SCS over-careful approach to legal matters won't make them omit immersive features being added to trucks or the game as a whole. That would be a shame.

Probably because Rockstar is a mega rich company that can afford the best lawyers and a prolonged legal battle if ever they were sued. SCS is not in that position so it makes sense that they would approach things more cautiously. They're not tiny and clearly they are financially well off since they were able to absorb the cost of not releasing HoR, but they're still peanuts compared to a big company like Rockstar, and easy targets for lawsuit-happy corporations who feel their brand is being infringed upon. It doesn't really matter if this hypothetical big company is legally in the right, the threat of a prolonged legal battle is enough to make SCS think twice about exposing themselves to that kind of risk.

[angrybirdseller]

Agreed, better to err on side of caution and replace logos now than risk lawsuit later on.