system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Why do car manufacturers pay to have their cars included in films, but charge licenses for their cars to be included in racing video games?

Dirt 3 and GRID were two video games taken off the shelves because their licenses for cars expired. Why did the car manufacturers require them to license their cars when they not only allow movie studios to include their cars but actively pay through the nose for it?
gpt
It would be logical if we assume the following facts:

* Movie placements drive sales
* Video game placements do not, or not as profitably as the licensing revenue would be.

From those, we could see that the movie placement is something the manufacturer would want more than the producer wants to have the car in the movie, and the movie producers would know that, and be able to charge through the nose for it. If we assume, above, that video game placements do not drive sales, then along with the following two assumptions:

* Movies can pick one or two vehicles to be featured and exclude all others
* Video games tend to include many vehicles and are disincentivized from excluding others. 

We can see that the video game placement is something the video game developer wants more than the car manufacturer does, which allows the manufacturer to charge the developer.

Like most things in economics, it's explainable by whoever wants something more than the other is at a disadvantage.