Quote
I want to say the difference is in the architecture, Ian. I'm assuming DoA and TR mods have the existing character models topless. The hot coffee mod had ground work in Rockstar developers - they last minute decided to disable the interactive sex games. I thought the mod simply reenabled them and then later versions enhanced the models. Regardless that would make Rockstar responsible since they developed the ground work and kept it in their game.
They didn't leave it in the game. They took it out of the game. If someone goes in and hacks into it, that's their own responsibility. It's not a simple enter a five button code and you get nudity, it's not a cheat. It's an actual modification of the game using either a hack program or device. 99% of games have elements and parts still on the disc that are no accessable (see Wind Waker's dungeons, for example). Those are not part of the game. Once a game is hacked its your own responsibility. Rockstar decided early on not to include that as part of the game, and what was left over was very basic and very unfinished. It was a mistake, but in no way, shape or form a crime.
And stop saying 'selling porn to minors' as if it's true, because it isn't. All sex isn't porn, plain and simple. The hot coffee elements are the equivalent of a nude scene. Not even that. A nude scene might take five minutes of a two hour movie, and hot coffee is less than 1% of San Andreas. AND yes 17 years old cannot buy porn, but they CAN go to R rated movies. The age for R is 17, not 18. Hot coffee is no worse than R rated movies. Basci Instinct, for example, features a woman's vagina and yet it's only rated R. San Andreas is not porn, it is no worse than an R rated movie. The age for both M games and R movies is...the same!
Quote
ESRB is responsible for doing something because it is their job to know so that they can rate content. For them to defend Rockstar when Rockstar didn't tell them about it, would not only be detrimental for their reputation outside of game developers but also would be stupid because Rockstar created this negative publicity and dragged ESRB into it.
The ESRB is a guide for parents, not a law. The ESRB ratings have no legal status. They're a service, not a police force. Rockstar didn't feel something that wasn't part of the game should be rated, and that's fair.
Quote
As I said before, I agree people have been gunning for GTA for ages and this was the excuse they needed, but that doesn't make Rockstar right for including the content.
Yawn. They didn't commit some henous crime. They simply made a mistake and handled it badly. The fact that God's warriors descended upon them doesn't actually make what they did as bad as Jack Thompson claims.
Quote
KDR, exactly. Of course they wouldn't willingly delay the game because it would mean they'd lose money. That was the decision they made as a company. What you call 'minor' though is turning pretty major.
To delete the hot coffee files would've taken all of ten minutes, and no delay would've been needed. There was no money making scam, no deception. Just a common practice that ended in a scandal blown out of proportion by video game attackers.
Quote
Personally I think the only thing that didn't merit the first 2 GTA3s an AO merit is because the rating had never been given to a game that didn't contain nudity.
There's nothing in the games that isn't in an R rated movie. 17 is a perfectly sensible age for them judging by other mediums' scales.
Quote
I'm not saying that it is right, but many parents have much less of a problem with violence and language than they do for sex.
It'd be one thing if this was a full-on sex FMV in something like Half-Life 2 or Perfect Dark, but it isn't. It's almost no nudity and rough 3D models humping in a game where you are a criminal, have to hit on girls, kill prostitutes and police, execute drug deals, use curse words every five seconds, etc. The sex is not anything serious in a game where the violence and language is very serious. And once again, a 17 year old can see movies with worse.
Quote
Kids do sneak into R rated movies and I guess they pirate them too (both illegal actions) but it is not as common as underage kids have violent video games and like I said before it is harder/impossible to be 'legally' big brothered in a theatre versus a video game. I'm 19 and my youngest sibling is 12. He has been exposed to M rated games for a while not because he tricked my mother into buying them for him, but because I play them.
Please explain to me how this has anything to do with Rockstar. Many parents let their kids watch R rated movies. Many big siblings let their little siblings watch bad movies. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no way to stop kids from playing adult games or watching adult movies. The fact that kids are more likely to play adult games at home than see an R rated movie in theatres shows parents aren't as strict as the MPAA, that's all. It has nothing to do with selling or making video games.
Quote
I thought that the 14 year old rating though they make sure you are 14 and even with a parent you can't get in?
Canada's system is the same as America's. With an adult you can take a child to any movie except XXX. In the US NC17 is the same way, no one udner 17 at all. But all other ratings a five year old can go to with an adult.
Quote
Descriptions aren't always accurate but you better make sure you put anything sex related on there because people freak out.
Yes...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal system or Rockstar. Just because America is tight about sex doesn't change the law.
Quote
MPAA get sued? wtf? If there was no system why would anyone be sued? and that is the significance here.
So people shouldn't be sued when they don't break any rules? What a novel idea! That's what the rest of us have been trying to show you for this whole thread.
Quote
This made me laugh. They aren't responsible, no but I guarantee Rockstar knows that all their copies of GTA are not landing in the hands of those over 17. Where do you even get AO games? I have never seen them anywhere. Have you? I bet it would stop kids from buying it, since they can't find it.
So...because some child will play a game, it shouldn't be sold? Not only would it stop kids from buying it, it'd stop most people from buying it. San Andreas is one of the highest selling games ever. It even sold a comparable amount to the best selling DVDs ever. The idea that because some kid might play it Rockstar shouldn't be able to sell it mkaes so little sense you're hurting my intelligence by saying it. Kids see R rated movies. Kids see PORN for goodness sake. That has zero relevancy. The game is for 17 year olds and up. You must be 17 to buy the game. All a company and store can do is rate the game for the appropriate age and sell it only to that age minimum. Beyond that you cannot control it, plain and simple. Rockstar makes games for 17+, marks is 17+, stores sell it to 17+. That's their duty, and they've done it. They made what was perhaps a poor judgement call on some leftover content, that's all. This whole ordeal has nothing to do with what happened, it's about an attack on video games. The simple resolution was to remove the content on all future prints, put out a warning for current prints, and move on.
Quote
BTW, I have a single parent who has to work a lot to provide. It would be easy to play something she doesn't condone in spite of the systems being in the family room. Were you trying to imply she doesn't care for me or doesn't care for me much? Nothing is ever black or white...
I have a single mom too. Whoop de doo. If you manage to play GTA behind your parents back, that's their problem (and yours). Not Rockstar or Take Two's.
Quote
What happened is completely fair. AO ensures Rockstar won't move many more games and they had to recall. It is like a punitive fee. You just implied they code remove the code from future prints - they should have delayed the game and done that in the first place to avoid this whole ordeal.
It got hacked, and that's all. Just because of a mistake a company shouldn't have to lose money. Ridiculous. The idea that because of this GTA should be stopped from selling is, as I already pointed out over and over, stupid. There was no delay needed, they didn't imagine anyone would ever hack it, and didn't expect it ever to be sold. I'm sure they were more shocked than anyone when it was hacked. Bad judgement, nothing more.
Quote
Like I said before, this is a suit specifically against Rockstar and as long as future defense attorneys know what they are doing, it won't be a precedent even if 'liberals' want it to be.
I'm so confused. Obviously this is a precident, and obviously it will be used. But what the heck does the word liberal have to do with anything? Jack Thompson is a conservative nut case. Clinton is tyring to prove herself somewhat consevrative to try and appeal to middle America for a presidental run. Being liberal has like...nothing...to do with anything here. Are you just insane?
Topic: City of LA sues over GTA:SA (Read 14638 times)
