Rockstar asked Miami Beach to co-sign the GTA VI version of itself

The proposal commits Miami Beach to nothing except a negotiator. It would empower the City Manager to work out terms with Rockstar Games, and the commission spent Thursday arguing over whether to hand across that authority ^[3].

Commissioner Joseph Magazine described what the city is actually choosing between. "Whether we accept this partnership or reject it, millions of people around the world are already going to experience a fictionalized version of Miami Beach through this game... We're not selling our soul, we're entering a partnership to bring in ... millions of dollars," he said ^[10]. He also called it "the biggest video game launch in global history" ^[9]. Rockstar built the setting without asking ^[1].

David Suarez, the meeting's first speaker, argued the other side on brand grounds. The city has "spent over a million dollars over the past three years trying to move Miami Beach away from an image of chaos and lawlessness," he said, and is trying to reinvent itself as a "family-oriented city" ^[5]. By that figure the effort has cost more than $333,000 a year ^[12]. He opened by listing what players do: he described it as an adult video game in which players steal cars, deal drugs, commit crimes and murder, and said they "assassinate police officers" ^[4].

Gizmodo checked that positioning against the city's own marketing and found multiple references to Scarface on the Miami Beach website, including what the site calls "the infamous chainsaw scene," plus a spotlight on The Godfather Part II ^[6].

Most of the floor time went to whether games cause crime. Monica Matteo-Salinas, who sponsored the proposal, said "we're not going to be giving away pistols and cocaine to people" ^[7] and told colleagues she is a law-abiding citizen who does not waterboard and does not even own a gun ^[8]. Magazine reached for the local football team: "They fight. They beat the crap out of each other. They curse... They're the Miami Dolphins," he said, arguing that "we can differentiate what's for entertainment and what's for real life" ^[11].

Anyone weighing a place-based tie-in has two things to establish: whether the product ships with your name or your likeness in it whether or not you sign, and whether signing changes how you appear in it. The game ships with the city's name in it either way, and signing does not change the depiction. When the depiction is finished, the negotiation is about the price of consent, and the only asset the city holds is its endorsement.

Cities in that position tend to talk as though the partnership will shape the portrayal, and the portrayal is already written. A co-marketing deal delivers a logo beside a finished product and a line in next year's budget, and the case for it has to be made on that basis, in public, by people who also have to defend the family-oriented rebrand they just paid for.

Gizmodo's account of the meeting does not include the money Rockstar put on the table ^[13]. The commissioners spent their time on the content question.