Post by: Djunknown on January 27, 2006, 01:41:12 PM
A clip:
Quote
Last Thursday the city of Los Angeles filed a suit against Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar's parent company, for selling pornographic content to minors in their infamous game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, according to recent reports by the Associated Press.
You can't make this stuff up. Seriously. Its beyond words, beyond stupidity, beyond anything...
Post by: Ian Sane on January 27, 2006, 01:52:54 PM
Though Rockstar DOES make "mature" content to sell to minors. They do deserve the crap they get because they use mature content in an exploitive way. But their BS affects the whole industry and it's not fair for everyone else if Rockstar's irresponsible behaviour sets precedence to screw over all gaming.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 27, 2006, 06:41:19 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 27, 2006, 08:22:49 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on January 29, 2006, 12:54:21 PM
*puts on sarcasm hat* I'm sure the fact that L.A. and generally the left coast is portrayed negativly in the game has had no influence on this lawsuit.
There isn't much as pitiful as the sight of liberals attacking civilian liberties.
Post by: odifiend on January 29, 2006, 01:31:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
What city is the center of the movie industry? Los Angeles. How many films are made each year with subject material far worse than anything in GTA? Tons. Yet those aren't considered pornographic. Yeah there's a movie rating but there's a game rating too. They put 'Mature' and '18+' on the box. The ESRB even chickened out like a total wimp and changed the rating to 'Adults Only'. Stop picking on the damn videogame industry. It's not their fault if people don't read warnings that are blatantly visible on the front of the box.
Though Rockstar DOES make "mature" content to sell to minors. They do deserve the crap they get because they use mature content in an exploitive way. But their BS affects the whole industry and it's not fair for everyone else if Rockstar's irresponsible behaviour sets precedence to screw over all gaming.
Hot coffee mod = nudity. An M rating is 17+. 17 year olds can't buy porn - they are minors. ESRB chickened out? Wtf? They had no knowledge of the coffee mod which invalidated their prior rating. ESRB SHOULD have recalled simply out of spite.
This is not setting a precedent as long as lawyers defending this in future are on point with all the details.
Post by: Artimus on January 29, 2006, 03:05:51 PM
Any kid who isn't ready to see non-genital-ed pixels going at it, isn't ready to play a game about stealing, murdering and being as bad as possible. That's all there is to it. If the kid has the game then its the parents fault.
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on January 29, 2006, 04:01:29 PM
Post by: odifiend on January 29, 2006, 04:29:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: kirby_killer_dedede
I'm not going to lie here. As much as I think these attornies are mentally retarded, all of this is Take Two/Rockstar's own fault.
I agree. Take Two warranted it and I think people trying to defend GTASA getting sued are trying to defend video games in general (maybe because they think this will be applied to video games across the board?)
The reasonable controversy with the hot coffee mod is that the game was misrated. Isn't that the point of ESRB? Why did Take Two let the content stay in there if it was never meant to be unlocked? They totally asked for it. Previously it is a shame that recall expenses were all they had to pay. I hope they lose.
Post by: Artimus on January 29, 2006, 04:43:46 PM
It was not part of the main game but had to be hacked on purpose with a great deal of effort. It was not explicit. It was not worse than its rating.
The hot coffee mod is no less appropriate than the rest of the game. This is just the continued attack on responsibility in parenting.
Post by: odifiend on January 29, 2006, 05:01:48 PM
I was under the impression that culturally nudity did include female breasts (non genitalia)... you wanna check that for me... While your at it, check on the definition for explicit.
Post by: Artimus on January 29, 2006, 06:10:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
There is a huge mental distinction between M and AO. You can't sell your game if it is AO. GTA the series honestly is an inch from being AO as it was. Throw nudity into the mix and it is unquestionable. R rated movies don't give you the "innovative" freedom that GTA gives you. I think Thompson is fing nuts and a lot of the accusation senators make is baseless, but as someone who follows games and who has followed games for a long time, i don't think this is a 'stepping' stone that video games need.
I was under the impression that culturally nudity did include female breasts (non genitalia)... you wanna check that for me... While your at it, check on the definition for explicit.
The ESRB has the following ratings:
eC - same as G
E - PG
E10 - An extra PG
T - PG13
M - R
AO - NC17
Clearly GTA is not NC17. The nudity in hot coffee is all breasts, something not uncommon in a PG13 film (Tit-anic anyone?). It's also very crude. You also have to hack to get it. What is there is not deserving of AO, and it isn't even regularly available. The only 'mistake' was Rockstars initial lies about it. The code should've been removed, nothing more. And the rating change should've been to simply add 'sex and nudity' to the M rating.
There is nothing in hot coffee that a 17 year old shouldn't be able to handle. It's a lot less horrible than the rest of the game. The scandal is entirely being used to wage war against mature content in games. They waged the same war against films in the early years of movies with the Hayes code, and then with TV in the past 20 years. Now its video games.
Anyone old enough to play GTA is old enough to see hot coffee, that's all there is to it. Because the mod was not readily accessable to minors they shouldn't be sued for selling porn. And since it isn't sexually explicit beyond breasts and the motions, it isn't even porn. Porn is entirely for sexual purposes, and hot coffee (even if included) is a fraction of a percent of GTA's content. Clearly GTA isn't porn. Clearly this is a bull-crap scandal.
Post by: bustin98 on January 29, 2006, 06:10:33 PM
EDIT - A quick Google search displayed results of some breasts and some hidden with a t-shirt. But the dude still has his pants on. Nothing like trying to have sex through a zipper!
Post by: KDR_11k on January 29, 2006, 07:50:37 PM
In this case the removal was probably last minute, which means they want to keep changes as small as possible to avoid accidentally breaking other parts of the game. They probably just removed the trigger, asked a tester to look if it still was available and when the result was "no" considered the issue done because they had enough other things to take care of.
Post by: King of Twitch on January 29, 2006, 07:54:49 PM
Post by: wandering on January 29, 2006, 08:59:54 PM
Quote
*puts on sarcasm hat* I'm sure the fact that L.A. and generally the left coast is portrayed negativly in the game has had no influence on this lawsuit.
I actually thought that's what the lawsuit was about when I read the headline.
I don't have strong feelings about this. The content shouldn't have been on there, and Rockstar certainly shouldn't have lied about it. Unlike, say, the government censorship that Arnold passed into law awhile back, this lawsuit seems pretty legitimate.
Post by: odifiend on January 30, 2006, 12:57:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
eC - same as G
E - PG
E10 - An extra PG
T - PG13
M - R
AO - NC17
Clearly GTA is not NC17. The nudity in hot coffee is all breasts, something not uncommon in a PG13 film (Tit-anic anyone?). It's also very crude. You also have to hack to get it. What is there is not deserving of AO, and it isn't even regularly available. The only 'mistake' was Rockstars initial lies about it. The code should've been removed, nothing more. And the rating change should've been to simply add 'sex and nudity' to the M rating.
There is nothing in hot coffee that a 17 year old shouldn't be able to handle. It's a lot less horrible than the rest of the game. The scandal is entirely being used to wage war against mature content in games. They waged the same war against films in the early years of movies with the Hayes code, and then with TV in the past 20 years. Now its video games.
Anyone old enough to play GTA is old enough to see hot coffee, that's all there is to it. Because the mod was not readily accessable to minors they shouldn't be sued for selling porn. And since it isn't sexually explicit beyond breasts and the motions, it isn't even porn. Porn is entirely for sexual purposes, and hot coffee (even if included) is a fraction of a percent of GTA's content. Clearly GTA isn't porn. Clearly this is a bull-crap scandal.
NC17 are bad movies about strippers where people see breasts. GTA is a murderous romp through a city which with the hot coffee mod involves unadvertised sex scenes. Do you think GTA couldn't make the NC17 'cut'? As I said before, GTA should have been close to an AO rating before this - the game is just gratitous. And just like some Mature games that get too many teen classifiers and get pushed into the mature bracket, GTASA received too many Mature classifiers and was pushed into AO.
Artimus, you seem really naive. Do only 17 year olds play GTA? And even parents who like to put things into context, how were they supposed to know about the games entire content if it wasn't advertised? The movie industry and the game industry are different. You can't get in the door to an R rated movie unless your parents are with you (and in canada you can't get in at all if you are of age). You can't be 'older siblinged' into a movie - the regulations tend to be more strict. That is not true of video games. Until recently minors could buy M rated games most everywhere without being checked for ID and if you have 5-10 extra dollars even strange, loitering 17 years olds will buy you an M rated game.
But I think what really differentiates the industries is the proliferation of movies. Even if you heard about something explicit in a certain movie, it is a whole year before you can get it on video/dvd and by then most non perverts will forget. Video games, especially something as blockbuster as GTA, can't be forgotten so easily. I'm sure people have been waiting in the bushes to attack GTA for a long time and Take Two finally messed up.
KDR, they could have *gasp* delayed the game and missed the holiday season. It was a judgment call they made and I hope they are ready to face the consequences.
Post by: Artimus on January 30, 2006, 05:12:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendNC17 are bad movies about strippers where people see breasts. GTA is a murderous romp through a city which with the hot coffee mod involves unadvertised sex scenes. Do you think GTA couldn't make the NC17 'cut'? As I said before, GTA should have been close to an AO rating before this - the game is just gratitous. And just like some Mature games that get too many teen classifiers and get pushed into the mature bracket, GTASA received too many Mature classifiers and was pushed into AO.
So you're all fine and dandy about the whole holiday season sales conspiracy, but the obvious fact that the ESRB rated the game AO because of the huge pressure on them still eludes you? You're the naive one.
Quote
Artimus, you seem really naive. Do only 17 year olds play GTA? And even parents who like to put things into context, how were they supposed to know about the games entire content if it wasn't advertised? The movie industry and the game industry are different. You can't get in the door to an R rated movie unless your parents are with you (and in canada you can't get in at all if you are of age). You can't be 'older siblinged' into a movie - the regulations tend to be more strict. That is not true of video games. Until recently minors could buy M rated games most everywhere without being checked for ID and if you have 5-10 extra dollars even strange, loitering 17 years olds will buy you an M rated game.
No, I'm not naive, I'm living in the real world. You're the one arguing about nitpicks that really shouldn't affect anything. How can parents know if a game is appropriate for their child? Because there's insane violence, language and content in the thing! There are sexual references all through the normal game. No parent in their right might would let a child play GTA. The addition of some crude 3D models humping doesn't exactly change the game's appropriateness. The game's other content is far worse than a little crude sex (without any genitalia or language!).
As for minors buying M rated games, that's not good and I'm glad its stopped. But it doesn't change how stupid a lawsuit about hot coffee is. Kids sneak into r-rated movies all the time. No cineplex I've ever been to (in Canada or the US) has someone at individual theatre doors. You can simply buy a ticket to a PG or PG13 movie and go into the R rated from there. Should theatres be sued for this? And dont even start on Canada. I've seen TONS of movies rated 14 that are WORSE that have worse sex and worse language than GTA by far. In Canada there isn't even an NC17 rating, 18 is as high as it goes. The XXX rating is for sex films only.
And regarding the ratings descriptions not being accurate as the problem, you've got to be kidding me! Video game descriptions are every bit as detailed as movie descriptions. And they didn't even start the descriptions on MPAA ratings until the early nineties. Should we sue the MPAA because it didn't properly label movies back then? Nonsense.
The thing about acquiring M rated games is stupid. How on earth is a video game company or a store reponsible for a seventeen year old buying a game for a kid? HOW DO THEY EVEN KNOW? What are they supposed to do, subject every single person who buys a game to a gruelling CIA examination just to verify they might not at any point show the game to a minor? Its ridiculous. And being AO vs. M isn't going to stop a kid from asking someone the right age. That's why if you have a young video game player you put the video game system in the family room and watch what they play. Novel idea to actually monitor the game playing, I know, but some parents really do care that much!
Quote
But I think what really differentiates the industries is the proliferation of movies. Even if you heard about something explicit in a certain movie, it is a whole year before you can get it on video/dvd and by then most non perverts will forget. Video games, especially something as blockbuster as GTA, can't be forgotten so easily. I'm sure people have been waiting in the bushes to attack GTA for a long time and Take Two finally messed up.
Wait...I'm the naive one for thinking parents should do their job, but you say you have to wait a year to get a movie at home? Umm...teenagers are some of the biggest pirates in the world, duh? If they want to see a boobies shot where do they go? THEIR INTERNET BROWSER. Or they just sneak into the movie. Kids aren't ingenious kniving little demons only when it comes to GTA. Heck, it's certainly cheaper than buying a video game.
People dont care about GTA, they care about censoring games. Its the exact same as the other two instances I already mentioned it. If you think otherwise you're in denial. Let's look at what's changed:
GTA is now properly labelled
GTA is now given the porn rating
M games can't be sold to minors
And they still deserve a law suit? Get real. All that should've happened was either Take Two removed the code altogether in future prints, or the label 'sexual scenes' or something added to the rating. The sale of M games to minors was simply a matter of time coming, but is fine now. But instead of that being enough, people are still going on and on about the evil video game industry. The modern world is a nanny world, full of parents doing everything they can to do as little parenting as possible. Any kid with responsible parents wouldn't own or be allowed to play this game. And if by some sheer force of ingenuity the kid concocts some complex plan to secretly play the game at 4am every thursday...can you really blame anyone for that? And is hot coffee going to make the slightest difference?
NO. Get real.
Post by: odifiend on January 30, 2006, 06:47:25 AM
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. I agree with you that the game's content is really inappropiate but I still believe that the city of LA is just capitalizing on a legitimate case against a game that has been getting media attention for a long time.
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.
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? If so that is probably a better system that america's rated R since kids can still get in with a paying adult over 25.
Descriptions aren't always accurate but you better make sure you put anything sex related on there because people freak out.
MPAA get sued? wtf? If there was no system why would anyone be sued? and that is the significance here.
"How on earth is a video game company or a store reponsible for a seventeen year old buying a game for a kid? HOW DO THEY EVEN KNOW?"
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.
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...
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.
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.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 30, 2006, 06:48:21 AM
This is not setting a precedent as long as lawyers defending this in future are on point with all the details."
It's the hot coffee MOD. MOD! Why they hell should the ESRB or Rockstar be responsible for something that requires the game to be hacked in order to see it? Now Rockstar were complete morons for leaving that content in the game even if there was no official way to see it but still. The ESRB should have made a statement about how it was a hack and thus isn't considered part of the official game. They didn't do anything wrong so they should have stood their ground. Rockstar then should have removed hot coffee from all future releases of the game. Instead ESRB wussed out and bent over backwards for anti-game activists that had NO CASE and thus has sent precedence for game companies being responsible for what hackers do to their work. They also have set precedence for people outside of the industry to influence a game's rating.
The Dead or Alive games have nude hacks. Tomb Raider had one too. Should those games be reevaluated because of that? The only reason hot coffee was such a big deal was because it was GTA, which already was a controversial game to begin with. Rockstar makes their living off of releasing controversial games that exploit violence and crime. Thus people were looking for any chance they could to nail them and hot coffee was the perfect excuse.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 30, 2006, 07:19:30 AM
Ian: It's both what I love and hate about settlements, they are no precedents. I hate it especially when it would hit someone for severe misconduct like rootkits on CDs or monopolistic practices. Though the cases where I appreciate the lack of precedent usually are the ones where I think "that should have been thrown out of court". A settlement is only a precedent in the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" way.
Post by: Galford on January 30, 2006, 10:40:29 AM
Double that when it comes to videogames.
Post by: ThePerm on January 30, 2006, 10:54:17 AM
thats one good thing about Nintendo, they are really good at this sort of thing. I'v heard somewhere that Wind Waker is only like 400mb. They know how to manage their content because they put restrictions on theirselves, which keeps them from being lazy.
Post by: odifiend on January 30, 2006, 11:40:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It's the hot coffee MOD. MOD! Why they hell should the ESRB or Rockstar be responsible for something that requires the game to be hacked in order to see it? Now Rockstar were complete morons for leaving that content in the game even if there was no official way to see it but still. The ESRB should have made a statement about how it was a hack and thus isn't considered part of the official game. They didn't do anything wrong so they should have stood their ground. Rockstar then should have removed hot coffee from all future releases of the game. Instead ESRB wussed out and bent over backwards for anti-game activists that had NO CASE and thus has sent precedence for game companies being responsible for what hackers do to their work. They also have set precedence for people outside of the industry to influence a game's rating.
The Dead or Alive games have nude hacks. Tomb Raider had one too. Should those games be reevaluated because of that? The only reason hot coffee was such a big deal was because it was GTA, which already was a controversial game to begin with. Rockstar makes their living off of releasing controversial games that exploit violence and crime. Thus people were looking for any chance they could to nail them and hot coffee was the perfect excuse.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Post by: Artimus on January 30, 2006, 12:33:57 PM
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?
Post by: odifiend on January 30, 2006, 05:37:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
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. Is that in video game law that anything on the disc that is unlocked is the consumers resposibility? It would be one thing if the hot coffee mod was some plug in that warped GTASA's engine, but all the ground work was done by Rockstar. I don't know how well you actually researched this, but if what you say is true and early on Rockstar decided to take this minigame out, why keep it? If this is the precedent that this case sets, that a game company is responsible for all the content on the disc their customer buys that is not a bad precedent. In fact since it is part of the product you purchased, it even makes common sense. And who said it was a crime? Being sued doesn't mean what you have done is criminal
And stop saying 'selling porn to minors' as if it's true, because it isn't. Where did I repeat myself for you to use the word 'stop'. I don't think I said it more than once and that was in reference to Ian implying that there was no legal distinction between a 17 and an 18 year old.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. A game in which you have the freedom to spend as much time as you want where you want... Stop trying to equate the movie industry with the video game industry, they aren't the same as much as you want them to be. Get over it!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. Being sued doesn't mean what you have done is criminal. Like people get sued for false advertising in America. Think of this case as an extension of that.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. Yawn, you don't have to commit a crime to be sued... They simply made a mistake and handled it badly. People are sued all the time for mistakes. 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 If so, sucks that they kept them in there- they've probably lost millions already because of laziness and lack of foresight., 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. KDR, who actually programs (right?) earlier said it might have been kept in because they'd have to further debug the game. If it would have taken 10 minutes, all the more reason to cover their ass.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. Interactivity is in the games. Though I wouldn't blow it out of proportion like Jack Thompson does, it is different to actively cause something versus passively watch it.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. Read what I said about many mature classifiers meriting this an AO rating. Geist for example doesn't scream out Mature to me, but enough little teen things added up to earn it an M rating.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. Sure there is a way to stop it. An AO rating is practically an injunction. How many more copies GTASA have been sold since the new rating? If you want a nonsmart ass answer, try reading your own previous post - my response followed pretty logically. My story was in answer to some of your rhetorical questions and one sided views about how parents can control and are the final authority on what their children play or are exposed to.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. Too bad suing someone over not accurately rating there game does have something to do with the legal system and Rockstar, otherwise you might have made a point. Criminal law, which I think you are refering to, isn't coming into play so much as civil 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. More like there was no one supposed to be responsible. ESRB, though, not legal was designed as a system to make sure games were played only by a suitable audience. They work together with game companies to evaluate game content. By your own admission, AO games don't sell. So whether Rockstar meant to or not, when they circumvented the current rating for the game and sold a couple million copies because of it, it looks bad for them. They, since they dev'd the game, knew the content was in there. The fact that they didn't mean for it to be discovered is moot.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. 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. Exactly Artimus, but you just keep playing off this mistake like it is nothing. I don't know if there is some kind of culture disconnect that is going on, but ESRB who works with Rockstar games is stating that if you consider the entire content of the game they didn't rate it to the right age group. If Rockstar had notified ESRB ahead of time, you'd have a point, but they didn't, so you don't. I bet if ESRB was giving Rockstar an AO rating on GTASA before the release, they'd change whatever they had to to make it M, so it would sell.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. Wow. Sheer insolence... I don't play filth like GTA, but the sales figures suggest that others do. I'm telling you that your golden solution, "parents should monitor their kids", isn't a practical solution for everyone. Maybe I'll just spell it out for you next time...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. Bad judgment, means negative consequences... I thought you said you lived in the real world earlier...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? Liberal was in reference to the term nemo chose to use. But if you must know, the city of LA is pretty liberal, but don't worry I forgive your ignorance. After your post, I think I am insane. It is pretty obvious from reading your post, that maybe you don't know what the difference between a civil or class action suit versus a criminal suit. Pretty much civil suits are the result of a big corporation making a mistake. I think that is where you keep getting stuck. In America, that is grounds for a suit. Bottom line Rockstar made a mistake (admitted by pretty much everyone in this thread including you several times), by being lazy or whatever you want to call it, by keeping the sex games in GTASA that the hot coffee mods unlock. Sue-happy-America is going to do what they do best.
Edit: Fixed bold.
Post by: Artimus on January 30, 2006, 06:17:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendEdit: Fixed bold.
You didn't answer a single point I made. I never said there are no legal grounds for suing them, you can sue anyone for anything. My points were all related to your arguments about GTA being sold, access to the game and responsibility for ruinging the lives of children.
I'll respond again when you actually respond to my previous points.
Post by: odifiend on January 31, 2006, 12:32:45 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on January 31, 2006, 06:43:48 AM
Hot coffee isn't "unlocked". It's a mod. It's not like you can accidently stumble onto it by entering a weird button combo or by completing a secret objective in the game. You have to intentionally hack the game to find it. You have to know it's there and go after it. I agree that the rating should cover everything unlocked in the game be it a secret code or a secret level or whatever. But if something requires something like gameshark or for files to be fiddled with or something very "unofficial" to access it doesn't count because that's not part of the game. If this was like an arcade game where the company had complete control over the game and thus didn't have to worry about any hacks no one would have found this.
Imagine if someone painted a mural and initially included some nudity but then realized they didn't actually want that included and painted over it but then someone else used paint remover to uncover the original image. Is that the artist's fault? He thought he was covering it up. Is it his fault someone fiddled around and found abandoned material?
Post by: odifiend on January 31, 2006, 11:20:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Is that in video game law that anything on the disc that is unlocked is the consumers resposibility?"
Hot coffee isn't "unlocked". It's a mod. It's not like you can accidently stumble onto it by entering a weird button combo or by completing a secret objective in the game. You have to intentionally hack the game to find it. You have to know it's there and go after it. I agree that the rating should cover everything unlocked in the game be it a secret code or a secret level or whatever. But if something requires something like gameshark or for files to be fiddled with or something very "unofficial" to access it doesn't count because that's not part of the game. If this was like an arcade game where the company had complete control over the game and thus didn't have to worry about any hacks no one would have found this.
Coffee Mod info
It is not like Gameshark just materialized that part of the game. The ground work was Rockstar's and the gameshark unlocks it. Gameshark is commercial enough that it should have crossed Rockstar's mind that it would be unlocked. It seems also they were lying about being the ones who made it until it was also found in the PS2 version.
It seems I was off base a little. I thought the hot coffee mod included both PS2 and PC. I was arguing mostly against what was on the PS2.
Quote
Imagine if someone painted a mural and initially included some nudity but then realized they didn't actually want that included and painted over it but then someone else used paint remover to uncover the original image. Is that the artist's fault? He thought he was covering it up. Is it his fault someone fiddled around and found abandoned material?
I like the analogy, but you have to realize that isn't valid. Whereas a painting you'd pretty much have to scrap what you were doing to hide the original (if paint remover wouldn't just remove all the paint...). Rockstar had options. In fact if they had taken the time to take it out of the PC version (where a lot of times you do get to see all game files due to the interface -i.e. negligence), they might not ever have had to go through this ordeal.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2006, 07:42:27 PM
Now, let's make an assumption: I make a game where female characters change their clothes (let's say, bikinis so there's not a whole lot of unseen faces) a lot and I have enough system ressources at my disposal to model their entire bodies. So I make the entire bodies and add clothing models over that, opting not to remove unseen faces because of time constraints and not wanting to save the body again for each piece of clothing (could be a whole lot of data if the models are detailled enough).
Someone tells the gameshark to remove the clothing models that are put on the girls and uncovers "nude" bodies (perhaps replacing the texture on the clothes with a texture that's zero alpha all over). Would it be my fault that the characters are naked under their clothes? Hell, some games even deliberately include nude skins (Zanzarah had one in the demo) yet noone raises a fuss about that.
How about country-specific censorship? What if the user pokes a byte or two to reenable the fatalities and blood in a game rated 16 here? What if said game was called "Unreal Tournament 2003" and the bytes to poke were the "language=det" line in the UT2003.ini? Nope, no outrage.
If the user starts poking random bytes in your code or datafiles you CANNOT guarantee what will happen. If it wipes his memory card that's his fault. If it sends threatening emails to the FBI and gets him jailed that's his fault. It's like suing Ford because their car engines explode if you fire a few 30mm DU rounds through them. It's misuse of the program.
Post by: odifiend on February 01, 2006, 02:17:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm pretty sure Rockstar doesn't act as a single mind, someone from marketing said "guys, that sex scene will never pass the ESRB!" so they ordered it removed, the responsible dev just removed the trigger and thought all is fine. These aren't security critical applications and during crunch people usually don't think about consequences anymore, they just want to get it shipped, go home to get some sleep and see their family again.
If the user starts poking random bytes in your code or datafiles you CANNOT guarantee what will happen. If it wipes his memory card that's his fault. If it sends threatening emails to the FBI and gets him jailed that's his fault. It's like suing Ford because their car engines explode if you fire a few 30mm DU rounds through them. It's misuse of the program.
Right, I'm positive Rockstar doesn't act as a single mind but you do understand as a company they are responsible for whatever content they release, right? The developers are just as responsible as the marketing guys who applied pressure to them or were ignorant of "just" the trigger being removed. I'm sure this discovery is a marketing and PR nightmare- not what anyone at Rockstar had in mind.
I'm no programmer but under what sun is a commodity product like Gameshark and Action Replay seriously considered random code? Especially when all these 'random' bytes do is unlock everything on the disk. The days of button only cheat codes are gone - that is what the Gameshark is for. The Gameshark has been used in this manner for most of its life and in this instance, it does unlock something that Rockstar themselves made (and apparently works - analog thrusting action, anyone?).
Rockstar was either stupid for not considering this might happen; arrogant for thinking they'd never get busted; or just not communicating internally - either way, the responsibility is still on them.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2006, 03:29:13 AM
Post by: odifiend on February 02, 2006, 11:22:14 AM
Honestly if I worked for Rockstar, I could have told them this would blow up and be made a big deal if ever discovered. How is it that all Nintendo's mistakes are obvious but obvious mistakes of other companies aren't?
ESRB's reaction was actually very logical. They didn't condone or grade the mini game, they had no reason to stick to their guns especially since for them to defend their decision could mean that they too might be implicated in the suit. ESRB is the accepted standard for grading video game content in America, after all. What an unnecessary risk it would be to protect a company that did not fully disclose everything to them and I bet they get flack for all the time. Public pressure is one thing but people seem to forget the potential legal pressure.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 02, 2006, 01:28:40 PM
They didn't grade the mini-game because it's not part of the game. They're not protecting a company that did not fully disclose everything to them. They're protecting a company that made a legitimate mistake and were getting blamed for it as if they did it on purpose. They're protecting the entire industry from politicians and special interest groups dictating the ratings. The whole purpose of the ESRB was to protect the industry from those very people dictating what content is permitted. Now the ESRB is HELPING those people. It's only logical in the sense that being a yellow-bellied coward who lets their largely innocent collegues out to dry is logical. It's a mistake because it negatively affects the entire industry which includes the ESRB. It's also a mistake because it killed the credibility of the rating system. By changing the rating that acknowledged that they were wrong. They weren't. They gave the correct rating for the official content of the game and I'd argue that even with Hot Coffee the game only deserved an 'M'. But instead they wussed out and told the world "the ESRB rating system is inaccurate and flawed".
Post by: odifiend on February 02, 2006, 03:24:25 PM
Quote
The ESRB rating system helps parents and other consumers choose the games that are right for their families. ESRB ratings have two parts: rating symbols that suggest what age group the game is best for, and content descriptors that indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern.
I don't see where protecting the industry is in ESRB's mission statement in fact I'm pretty sure they were designed to protect the consumer if I am reading right... You act like ESRB rolls on ratings all the time - this is an isolated incident and Rockstar was so innocent that they publically lied about it. Please.
And as for ESRB being weaked in credibility, you're flat out wrong. Nobody even cares about ESRB or thinks they are wrong (except some of the hardcore gamers in this thread). And people who say that that content doesn't deserve an AO, should check games that do get AO ratings. That Singles game that was advertised on IGN looked more tame than what was in GTASA.
Post by: wandering on February 02, 2006, 07:53:03 PM
Quote
That Singles game that was advertised on IGN looked more tame than what was in GTASA.
yeah, if anything the ESRB bows to industry pressure and helps the industry more than it should.
Post by: Galford on February 02, 2006, 08:01:58 PM
Does anyone here remember the naked Kasumi hack for DOA2?
It was nothing more then a hi-poly model with no texture mapping...
Here's a link to refresh everyone's memory...
http://hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/doa/doa2.htm
Post by: wandering on February 02, 2006, 08:44:39 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 03, 2006, 01:19:21 AM
Galford: Interesting, the costumes displayed there aren't in my version of the game (PS2, PAL, includes features listed on that site as added in Hardcore), even the lower numbers differ (e.g. evil Kasumi is outfit 2 on tht page but 3 in the game I played).
Post by: Ian Sane on February 03, 2006, 06:55:46 AM
In reality the ESRB was created in response to controvery involving games like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat. There was a threat of the government stepping in and enforcing ratings. So the ESRB was created so that, like with the movie industry, the game industry could control their own content and not have to worry about politicians interfering. Yeah the ESRB provides a service for the consumer but it also protects the industry from politicians and special interest groups that use it as a scapegoat. The ESRB only exists because of the threat of government regulation. So for them to reassign a rating like that for hacked game content because of pressure from politicians and special interest groups goes against the very purpose of their creation.
Post by: odifiend on February 03, 2006, 11:11:15 AM
Guess what would happen if the government felt ESRB was just protecting the industry? The exact thing that you predict might happen would just happen faster. GTA has had the government pestering ESRB since its third installment. ESRB has stood by Rockstar the entire way - For Rockstar to even dare to even think to put that crap in their game in the first place when they've been walking a line with the general public was just f***ing stupid. Explain to me, Ian, why you think ESRB should be protecting Rockstar for what is so clearly their own mistake? The 'greater good' of the industry is not really the in-depth thinking I might expect from you.
Again, they had to reassing the rating because the total content changed with the use of a product that has been on the market doing that same thing for years. For ESRB to have defended this game and their previous rating would have undermined their credibility by putting them at odds with their real purpose as well as likely attracting legal heat.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 03, 2006, 12:15:02 PM
Because the ESRB didn't make any mistakes and the content is not officially part of the game. There's no proof that Rockstar "deceived" the ESRB. They just lazily left some content in the code and unfortunately for them hackers found it. Maybe they did it on purpose but there's no actual way to prove that and old stuff is kept in code all of the time. The ESRB should have just released a statement saying "Our rating reflected what Rockstar presented to us as the official game content. We never know what hackers are going to do to a game and thus can't take that into account." Such a statement would relieve the ESRB of any responsibility but without the horrible precedence of outside forces influencing the change to a game's rating. Plus now the ESRB is responsible for mods. They're now responsible for stuff they can't predict or foresee. If you release a game and I mod it into a porn sim the ESRB is now under pressure to have foreseen this mod and rate the game accordingly. By making the switch they just brought a huge amount of responsibility on themselves. Everyone is now responsible for hacks beyond their control including the ESRB.
I can see the logic in wussying out because it's a quick fix. But in the longterm I think it's a poor decision for everyone including the ESRB.
Rockstar are idiots though and I largely blame the whole mess on them.
Post by: odifiend on February 03, 2006, 12:40:39 PM
ESRB isn't responsible for mods and neither is Rockstar - they are responsible for the product they sell to consumers, hidden or otherwise.
I still fail to see how ESRB wussied out because they changed the rating to more accurately reflect the game... And I don't see how your statement solution would really be better. There are obviously a lot of people upset about this and ESRB stating that they had no knowledge of it and then not doing anything is not going to keep government out of video games in the long run (or even the short run).
Rockstar is completely to blame.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 03, 2006, 10:01:43 PM
Post by: odifiend on February 04, 2006, 03:46:25 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 04, 2006, 05:46:53 AM
Post by: odifiend on February 04, 2006, 06:15:38 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 04, 2006, 07:14:24 AM
Post by: odifiend on February 04, 2006, 08:23:55 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 04, 2006, 08:50:28 AM
Post by: odifiend on February 04, 2006, 10:07:43 AM
