@Hailinel: The implicit design of something has little to do with how it is actually used. I get enjoyment from running a slick ar15 in 3 gun competition the same as a porche gt3 owner gets enjoyment from taking his car out on track days. An irresponsible or unstable person could use my 3 gun rig to hurt or kill people, and irresponsible person in a porche gt3 speeding on a highway could cause an accident and hurt or kill people.
A responsible driver won't kill anyone by driving their car unless there is an accident. A responsible gun owner could still injure or kill, based on the nature of their occupation.
While it might seem farfetched, it's not impossible for someone to be against the idea of funding a gun manufacturer with their own money (where profits go to the publisher/developer that licensed the rights to the models) while also buying and playing video games that prominently feature gun use.
I can understand not wanting your money to go to a weapons manufacturer if you aren't into the whole gun thing. People just need to realize that licenses for firearms are the same as licenses for anything else, some money has changed hands to have that thing appear in a game.
People do realize that and they're disgusted by it. That's kind of what this whole thing is about. A bit of reading comprehension would do you well.
If people realized that licensing for firearms is the same as anything else, why is this a story? licensed guns have been in games for a while, it's pretty obvious the gun manufacturers are paid for this, why the sudden outrage?
Disgusted by it why? You are using the weapons those companies designed to kill people in video games. The companies should feel bad and you shouldn't though? Is anyone even actually mad about this or is this another case of a journalist saying 'people are outraged' when really no one is? Also, something you should keep in mind: the overwhelming majority of guns in the United States and even globally are never used to kill anyone.