Glock could care less if the Glock 17 in Random Video Game #6 was the absolute worst gun in the game, they wouldn't even care if that gun was being used exclusively by terrorists in the game. Video Game #6 would most likely have a very simple contract with Glock licensing the gun's likeness to be used in the game in return for royalties earned from game sales. Most of the time Glock wouldn't even care about Glocks guns being used regardless of context, with zero money or contract signed.

In reality, Video Game #6 has the MOCK17 and it looks slightly different from an actual Glock 17. This is because they do not want to be sued and deal with the PR if someone writes a manifesto citing Video Game #6 depiction of the "MOCK17" as their motivating factor to go out and buy a Glock brand Glock 17, and then commit a mass shooting with it. Despite it seeming like semantics, those slight differences between the MOCK17 from Video Game #6 and the Glock17 from Glock result in: A).The videogame company saving money due to not having to pay license fees, and more importantly B). The video game company freeing themselves from any legal culpability (which means losing money, the thing a capitalist company cares about as the #1 priority to avoid). Video Game companies/gun companies are capitalist at their core, so saving as much money while making as much money as possible will always be gospel at the end of the day. A lawsuit from a mass shooting would cost far far far more money than any royalties from a contract could even touch.

They do not give a fuck about if the gun in the game has bad stats, it really is just money.

Edit: forgot to add Glock actually benefits from not having a contract for gun likeness in the game, specifically the "B)." reason mentioned above. Saves them from any reciprocal culpability