You must log in or register to comment.
Props to the car though; it’s way more easier to make a model out of it using 3d modeling software.
deleted by creator
Rendered easily on a stone tablet running Cuneiform.
Body 10 polygons, add 4 hexagon wheels…58 polygons.
In all seriousness, the BBC micro could probably render it.
My Amiga 500 certainly could,.
Found the fortnite developer. I didn’t know they ever let you guys take breaks!
Yet another reason for me to never play this game. It’s full of contextless characters, appropriated and stolen dances/animations, microtransactions and now this rubbish.
Sadly, it remains a great game to play with friends bc even casual gamers understand the appeal. So alas…it continues to take up 60gb on my games drive.
fair enough, hope you continue to enjoy it.
I hope this person tries out real games. Like counter strike 3, halo 1, battlefield 3, call of duty 4 or something like that. Current games kinda suck.
If you are talking about me, those are not the kind of games I enjoy.
What constitutes a real game?
Real games are games that aren’t Fortnite bs (no offense). Fortnite definitely negatively impacted First person shoots IMO.
Why is Fortnite not a real game? It’s fine to not like things, and good to criticize Epic for their terrible practices in and out of Fortnite, but saying it isn’t a real game smells gatekeepy to me.
Even those BF and CoD versions are pretty meh compared to earlier iterations IMO. These days I avoid those series.
BF2 is also still good. CoD4 I really liked in the past.
Question because I have no idea: would they have licensed the image and paid Musk for this or would Musk have paid them as marketing? Or neither?
I always wonder this with these brand crossovers that fortnite has become synonymous with. My guess is that it’s something close to “neither” - there is a contract that is signed, but I think because both parties benefit, very little money actually changes hands between Epic and the IP owner.
Car manufacturers get the last say on how their cars are used on any media; and they typically go with licence agreements of some sorts.
The licencing is typically done on a set time frame (which is why most car games that uses real cars does get taken off of stores like 5-7 years later.).
On Fortnite, revenue sharing is done between the IP owner and Epic Games based on how much the said item sells. Since they can this item launch as a limited time sale; this gives a big playerbase an incentive to buy it.
Usually, when it’s a one-off like this, the video game gets “paid” to put the stuff in their game. That payment may be in-kind advertising campaigns, etc.
For something like Need for Speed, Forza, etc, the game will be licensing the likeness of the vehicles and the company logos in the game. I don’t know the costs, but the fact that it’s also advertising will factor in.
In this case, there are a few likely scenarios:
- The game director or art director or someone high up at Epic has a hard-on for the Cybertruck and really wanted it in the game. So they pursued Tesla and made a deal.
- Epic wanted to add vehicles to the game and decided to go with licensed vehicles. Their merchandising people reached out to merchandising people at all the auto companies and then figured out some deals.
- Someone high up at Tesla (maybe even Musk) loves, or has a kid who loves, Fortnite and decided they want the Cybertruck in the game. So they pursued Epic to make a deal.
Number 2 is most likely, but I don’t know the game well enough to know the vehicle situation in it.
For all of them, you have to factor in a bunch of details to figure out who is paying who:
- who wants it more (/ power imbalance)
- how much money is it going to cost to make the models, animations, etc
- how much is it going to cost players to get the item
- are there aspects that either company finds undesirable (E.g. sometimes car companies don’t like their cars shown with damage)
- who will be doing the bulk of the marketing, and who has the marketing budget to spend on the venture
- probably a lot more
So, it’s hard to say without more inside info. Games I’ve worked on have had 1 and 2, but not 3 as far as I know. I think it was pretty much an in-kind deal for the 1 situation though (like we got the likenesses, they got advertising through the game, ostensibly we sold more games with the likenesses, but I think it just stroked someone’s ego…) All of the 2 situations were done to bring in money for the game’s marketing budget / or were in-kind marketing deals, possibly bringing money directly to the bottom line, but I don’t know.
What’s up with everyone calling it ugly? It’s a shit car, but I think it looks cool. Something that has no place in reality, but fitting in a video game.
Fitting in a Mario 64 romhack you mean
People tend to judge everything Musk related like that. I also think it looks cool. I’d love to drive something this unusual.
The cybertruck has enough issues that I wouldn’t want one, but yeah I would like a car looking like that, if it was actually a good car not made by Tesla.
What if it was a really good car but made by Tesla?
Then it would be good. But they already tried making one.
Satisfactory did it first: https://satisfactory.wiki.gg/wiki/Cyber_Wagon https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Satisfactory-Cyber-Wagon.jpg
This was added in 2020. It’s kinda hard to tell in the pics, but it even has square wheels.
Yeah they were making fun of it… Hence the square wheels.
Oh, I’m well aware. It was pretty amusing to play around with.
Square wheels + overpriced in the game + literally a single storage space in the vehicle. That was a great shitpost from them
Imagine if this was the only vehicle that couldn’t go up hills and would get stuck in rough terrain.
It’s out on rocket league tomorrow and I can’t wait to play with it, I just hope they give it dominus or octane hitbox
If it doesn’t explode at the slightest touch of anything it isn’t an authentic cyber truck experience.
I hope it cuts people with the sharp edges
😂 nice tires
