Why Has Call of Duty Renamed So Many Real Guns Over the Years?
The short answer is: to avoid potential legal and public relations issues. But as a longtime CoD fan, I think there‘s a lot more to unpack around Activision‘s decision to tweak the names of so many real-life firearms featured in the iconic shooter franchise.
The Price of Authenticity
Part of what has made Call of Duty feel so immersive over the years is its realistic weaponry. Iconic guns like AK-47s, Desert Eagles, and MP5s help ground the experience in a sense of authenticity and familiarity. However, licensing all these real firearm names and designs likely costs Activision a fortune.
Potential licensing fees represent expensive legal headaches Activision seemingly prefers to sidestep through subtle name changes. According to price approximation sites, a single gun license could cost anywhere from $100,000 to over $500,000. Even minor design tweaks may fail to protect CoD from litigation – for example, textbook publisher McGraw Hill faced a $150,000 lawsuit over a photo of a gun resembling a real-world firearm without permission.
With dozens of renamed guns over nearly two decades worth of CoD games, these costs would balloon astronomically. By renaming weapons, Activision limits potential legal and financial liability.
Playing It Safe in Controversy‘s Crosshairs
Beyond licensing issues, CoD weapons also end up renamed to preemptively dodge controversy. When the realities of firearm violence clash with CoD‘s fictional depictions, Activision seems to prefer distancing itself from real-world gun politics by scrapping real names.
For example, the "AN-94" assault rifle in the original Black Ops sparked criticism due to its roots in a canceled Russian weapon program. Eliminating these kinds of real-world ties gives Activision more control over CoD‘s creative direction without interference from external factors.
There‘s also speculation that Activision wants to avoid formal sponsorship relationships or partnerships with gun manufacturers. Any perceived ties to the gun lobby could damage CoD‘s brand image and require navigating sensitive PR issues most video game publishers probably want to avoid.
What‘s in a (Renamed) Gun?
While subdued name alterations help Activision reduces financial and legal risks, what about impacts on gameplay? Surprisingly, most renamed models retain nearly identical stats and behavior to their real-world counterparts. Let‘s look at a few prominent examples:
| Real Gun | Renamed Variant(s) | Overall Change |
|---|---|---|
| AK-47 | AK-12, etc | Minimal changes to visual model, same signature strengths like damage, range. Potential for greater creative freedom with fictional variants |
| AN-94 | AN-94 | No major impact – plays almost identically to real weapon |
| Desert Eagle | .50 GS | Visual shift to avoid copyright issues, retains powerful kick and classic "hand cannon" feel |
In most cases, renaming appears primarily cosmetic, not altering weapon behavior significantly from the real-world inspirations veterans know and love.
Impact on Immersion
However, as someone who admires CoD for its visceral sensations of simulated "real" warfare, the name changes definitely disrupt that suspension of disbelief for me at times. Seeing "P90 TR" and "Fennec" in weapon crate menus temporarily breaks the continuity of fiction for me personally – minor gripes, I‘ll admit, but sacrifices I wish Activision didn‘t have to make.
Still, Call of Duty continues thriving as gaming‘s most popular shooter franchise, suggesting most fans either don‘t notice or don‘t care about the altered monikers. And again – a small price to pay to continue enjoying my favorite shooter series mostly unimpeded by legal hurdles or controversies.
In Conclusion: Financial and Legal Priorities Rule the Day
Activision and Infinity Ward never intended to become experts in firearm history or politics – they set out to make heart-pounding video game spectacles grounded in just enough realism to hook players like myself.
So at the end of the day, while slightly distracting from my gameplay immersion at times, keeping the lawyers at bay through subtle tweaks makes reasonable business sense. As much profit and popular reception as Call of Duty garners, even seemingly minor risks of controversy, ratings issues, or litigation seemingly outweigh strict authenticity for Activision‘s priorities.
And if the odd renamed weapon means keeping the CoD train rolling smoothly enough to deliver exhilarating new sequels year after year? A reasonable trade-off in my book. But I won‘t pretend hearing someone shout "Grab the Fennec!" doesn‘t take me briefly out of the moment!
