Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jun 08, 2006 02:04 PM
from the angryness dept.
Government United States Entertainment Games Politics
kukyfrope writes "The FTC and Rockstar/Take-Two have reached a settlement surrounding the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas that will serve to prevent future incidents. The FTC has stated that Rockstar and Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games, or face an $11,000 fine per violation if undisclosed content is discovered. 'Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] ESRB Ratings Unfairly Targeted? 53 comments
John Callaham writes "The US video game ratings system created by the industry and the ESRB has come under attack in recent months, but is it really all that bad? FiringSquad decided to take an informal retail survey and compare how the ESRB rates games to how the movie and TV industry rates DVD releases." From the article: "One person who has been highly critical of the ESRB system is Leland Yee, the California Assemblyman who authored the bill that was signed into law last fall in that state that would ban the sales of certain games with violent content to minors (the law is currently not being enforced pending the conclusion of a court case started by the video/PC game industry). When the study of content descriptions in M-rated games was issued by Harvard earlier this month, Yee was quick to send out a press release ..."
Offsite: Gamasutra Coverage
Offsite: GamePolitics Coverage
[+] Your Rights Online: Take Two Investigated by New York Grand Jury 65 comments
cjm182 writes "Over a year after the infamous sex minigame (aka Hot Coffee) was found in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the New York District Attorney's office has subpoenaed Take Two Interactive and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games. Reuters reports that a grand jury requested documents relating to 'company officers' and directors' knowledge about the creation and inclusion of the 'Hot Coffee' minigame. This marks the first time Take Two has been asked to provide documents directly relating to the incident. Last week, GamePolitics.com ran an editorial calling for the U.S. Congress to subpoena Take Two directly, rather than criticize the FTC and the ESRB over the incident."
[+] Employee Exodus at Rockstar Games? 52 comments
hammersuit writes "GameDaily Biz is reporting on recent troubles at Rockstar Games. 'A difficult console transition, FTC investigation, re-rating of GTA: San Andreas and more have put Rockstar and Take-Two in an unenviable position. We've received word that in addition to people who left because of studio closures, even more either fled or quit. Are Rockstar employees jumping ship or is this just a result of cost-cutting at Take-Two?'"
[+] Rockstar Finally Wins a Lawsuit 30 comments
Eurogamer is reporting that Rockstar Games has finally won a lawsuit. It's an important one too, involving a strip club's objection to its appearance (in satirized form) in the streets of San Andreas. From the article: "Rockstar conceded that its artists worked from photographs of real life LA locations - including the Play Pen - when designing the game, but argued that they 'changed the names, building designs and overall look and feel of the locations... To make them fit the virtual, cartoon-style world of San Andreas and the series' irreverent tone.' Rockstar also referred to the lawsuit MCA Records successfully defended over the song Barbie Girl, when the judge ruled that trademark rights 'do not entitle the owner to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating ideas or expressing points of view.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: Suit Blames Videogames for Homicides 623 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Family members of three victims of a shooting by a 14-year-old have filed a $600 million lawsuit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. From the article: 'The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004 ... The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants -- Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- of a civil conspiracy, saying they should have foreseen their entertainment would spawn such copycat violence.'" It may or may not be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney.
[+] Rockstar's Road To Ruin 59 comments
Via GamePolitics, an exerpt from an upcoming Wired print magazine article on Rockstar's slide from grace. The article outlines a number of the problems we've discussed here on the site, such as their numerous lawsuits, the 'Hot Coffee' scandal, and stock-option problems. At four pages it's only a teaser for the longer article in the magazine, but it's still very much worth taking a look. "The irony is thick: The company that defined virtual criminality is now associated with the real thing. Rockstar and Take-Two executives declined to answer questions for this article, but their rich and troubled story is revealed by official documents and former employees. It seems the blokes forgot that in life, as in Grand Theft Auto, there are repercussions for the choices you make."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wow, that's not even a slap on the wrist! I would budget 30 Hot Coffee type mods in the next GTA if I were Rockstar.

  • Wow, $11,000 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nos. (179609) <andrew.thekerrs@ca> on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:07PM (#15496684) Homepage
    I wonder how many extra sales Rockstar generated because of the whole Hot Coffee thing. Probably enough to conver that fine several times over. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrant to me.
    • >> Doesn't seem like much of a deterrant to me.

      $11,000 is pretty cheap for that kind of advertising. I'd advise a Hot Grits mod for the next GTA title.
    • Actually according to TFA:
      According to Take-Two, the publisher has already incurred a loss of $24.5 million due to the "Hot Coffee" scandal, subsequent re-rating of San Andreas, and removal of the game from most retailers' shelves (until it was replaced with the M-rated version).
  • ...what a total slap on the wrist. Not that I am saying Rockstar should be fined or anything, but they did make out like a bandit there.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:14PM (#15496756) Journal
      I think it's pretty much a fair judgement. Sure the content was there, but they didn't have any intention of making it widely available. Additionally, even though it was made available, no one accidentally stumbled across it...you had to download a patch, install it, and then play through the game to that point.

      Beyond that, the game was rated M, which is the rating for 17+, which is the same age range as NC-17 which is the adult film category in the states.

      It's hard to see, given all those factors, how it would be possible for them to crack down hard on the game. The superbowl thing was different, because they slipped some (arguably) adult content into an all-ages broadcast.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pla (258480)
      ...what a total slap on the wrist.

      A slap on the wrist? For what??? Daring to not break the law?

      Get some perspective here, people! Rockstar did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

      And even if you give two squirts of a rat's ass about what the goddamned Christian Wrong have to say on the matter - This "content" didn't even exist in the game, as released - It took out-of-game action on the part of the player to make the scene accessible.


      Time to get the FCC back to just spectrum alloca

  • If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrXym (126579) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:07PM (#15496688)
    featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?
    • I'd pay $11,000 to see that! Er... the part _after_ the comma...
    • If I produce a mod for Solitaire featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

      No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire, dumbass. The "Hot Coffee" mod didn't add "mature"-rated content, it just unlocked what was already there (as shipped by Rockstar).

      • "No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire"

        That's just because you've not used the mod yet... ; )
          • Okay - please - explain this to me:

            2 games:
            One ships with nude base models for characters, and clothing is put on top when the models are generated for display. The nude models are never shown during "normal" gameplay, but someone makes a mod to make all clothing transparent.

            The other ships with a blank void where the naughty-bits are, and puts clothes on top, so you never see the blank-void-naughty-bits during gameplay. Someone makes a mod which adds in those naughty-bits.

            Now of course you'll say "But ga

            • Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Danse (1026) on Thursday June 08 2006, @03:05PM (#15497232)
              Now of course you'll say "But game A ships with naughty-bits!". It doesn't matter - to the end user running show_naughty_bits.exe, it's the exact same experience. Out here in the real world, there's no difference. Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?

              Exactly. If the user takes an action specifically to modify the game in a way that would violate its rating, then that's the user's fault, not the game developer's fault. If you don't want to see naughty bits, then don't modify the game. If you don't want your kids seeing naughty bits, then don't let them play unsupervised. This crap has gotten way out of hand and is just ridiculous now.
    • Only if you are unlocking gay bdsm material preexistant(although locked) in the Windows OS.

      I see this kind of like a loose Sarbanes-Oxley for Video Games: we're going to hold you accountable for disclosing information about your video game up front, and ignorance is not an excuse. Fortunately for Rockstar, they got the slap on the wrist this go because the law/court ruling didn't exist up until now.

      Someone at Rockstar left the material coded into the game. Now believe me, I've got nothing against seeing b

    • Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:25PM (#15496858) Homepage
      If I produce a mod for Solitaire ... featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

      Only if you can demonstrate your mod merely unlocked the already existing gay BDSM content which was in Solitaire. Otherwise, it's you who distributed the M content and gets in trouble, now Microsoft.

      In this case, Rock Star shipped the game with that content present, but disabled. This mod only re-enabled the content, not provided it.

      So, if you discover such content in Windows and can release a mod for it, then, be our guest. :-P

  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun (571051) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:07PM (#15496696)
    should the FTC be allowed to levy fines on behalf of a private organization? Why the hell is the FTC even involved, wouldn't this be more a contract dispute? Far as I know, they don't get to regulate games, but maybe it all falls under the same decency laws everything else does.
    • They put the content in the game, then locked it away. The ESRB did not know about this, rated it lower than it should have, and then people bought it based on the ESRB's rating, thus buying it under false pretenses. The FTC stepped in and actually did something free-market: "you will abide by the rating system that you agreed to sell your product under." Punishing fraud is one of the most basic things the government is supposed to do.

  • parents - think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joe 155 (937621) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:10PM (#15496714) Journal
    I really loved the bit about "parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system"... yep, I can see it now...

    "yeah, son, you can play this game where you have to sell drugs, have sex with prostitutes, murder policemen and steal their cars... it's all ok; just so long as there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it"

    Why did anyone care about this. Not only was it not in the main game it was by far the least offensive thing in the list I just mentioned... I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen
    • There's even a better argument, though; it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it? It's paid for by publishers, not taxes.
    • Whoah, whoah, whoah! Don't try to fool me with your logic and reason. Look, joe_155, it's not that GTA would be okay as long as "there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it". Because, my friend, there was no unrealistic computer simulated sex in GTA. Don't you see? That's where the problem is. It's especially a problem if it's not in the game, because then the game cannot be incorrectly rated for content that's not even in the game, but might be if someone chooses to put it there. Is that cle
    • *clap* I agree completely. I played GTA 3 for about a week. My 8 year old caught me playing one night and he thought it was the coolest thing ever and begged me to play it. I pawned it off at one of those used game stores for $5 the next day. Screw all these laws and fines. Parents that actually give a shit and pay attention to what their kids are doing would yeild better results in my opinion. I really can't see a parent saying "Billy, you're so annoying today, go sit infront of the TV and kill some
    • I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen

            I'd rather my children have sex with dead poli...uhh nevermind...

  • Entirely the Fault of the Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kamel Jockey (409856) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:10PM (#15496717) Homepage

    Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers

    This is crazy. It is not like GTA San Andreas was rated "E for Everyone" and then "unexpectedly" showed some adult-rated content to minors. Even with an "M" rating, how could any reasonable parent buy this game for their child and not thing something inappropriate would be there?

  • $11 K ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thePig (964303)
    $11 K per violation?
    this is absurd .. for complanies that make money in millions...

  • I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy AT tpno-co DOT org> on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:11PM (#15496730) Homepage
    Why was this even an issue? Rockstar didn't ship this content as active, a third party mod had to be used to get to it. They did not ship that content with intent to be seen, and if the code wasn't there by default to enable that section, it can hardly be their fault if players go out of the way to activate it.
    • Doesn't matter, IMO, the content shouldn't have been in a final shipping product in the first place.

      • Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy AT tpno-co DOT org> on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:38PM (#15496974) Homepage
        Doesn't matter, IMO, the content shouldn't have been in a final shipping product in the first place.

        Maybe not, but there is no functional difference between the content not being shipped with it and being shipped but turned off.

          • Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:56PM (#15497149) Homepage
            Someone could have created a mod which created that scene rather than unlocking it. For the end-user, what the hell is the difference? They're just running hot-coffee-patch.exe.

            How culpable is a company for people modifying their software? If I take all of their textures and pick-and-choose-and-cut-and-paste until I have something that looks like a boobie, did the software "ship" with that boobie?
            • If I take all of their textures and pick-and-choose-and-cut-and-paste until I have something that looks like a boobie, did the software "ship" with that boobie?

              Information theory to the rescue. In order to do that, your instructions will either be quite lengthy, or your search time will be long. Either way, the very instructions themselves constitute additional content; they are not themselves free of meaning or implication, as that would mean by definition they would have no effect.

              You're still adding the

  • A victory? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rapter09 (866502) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:12PM (#15496742)
    Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system
    I think that's a statement that could be construed as a victory for the ESRB, reinforcing that it wasn't the ESRBs fault that T2\RockStar didn't disclose the information. I think it's a good statement.

  • No, actually, it wasn't a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frobozz0 (247160) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:16PM (#15496780)
    "We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

    *sigh*

    No, actually it wasn't that big of a deal. Our priorities in this country baffle me sometimes. The rampant violence in this game wasn't bad in their eyes. Some rough sex and they draw the line? Come on, you had to mod the program just to see it!

    I hope enough people see through this charade.

    • It's not about the sex. It's about the lies. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by donutello (88309) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:36PM (#15496948) Homepage
      Rockstar games was and is free to include sex scenes in their video games - as they are free to include violence.

      What they can't do is deceive the rating board about the content. This is the Federal Trade Commission. Deceptive trade practices fall properly within their purview.

      That being said, $11,000 is a ridiculously small fine and takes into account the fact that this was inadvertent rather than intentional.
  • You can bet that companies are now going to pay more attention to inclusion of varies ... undocumented features.

  • Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WidescreenFreak (830043) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:20PM (#15496817) Homepage Journal
    As indicated above, this is a slap on the wrists. Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses. Let's face facts. They got a ton of criticism because of the way that they handled this. That wasn't a Rockstar release. It was a third party hack. Lots of games have third party hacks that allow this. That doesn't mean that it was done with the approval of the game maker. If a programmer puts an inappropriate comment in a program that will never be displayed but someone gets offended when trying to illegally hack the code, should the company be sued?

    Antucally, this kind of ruling sets a precedence that almost makes it seem like a possible marketing tactic: Hey, if we don't announce this and someone finds out, we could make a huge increase in sales from the publicity and only pay an $11,000 fine! It's costs more to advertize in major gaming magazines!

    I will take exception with one this that was said (emphasis mine):

    Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system.

    Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege ... at least for now.
    • Antucally

      Christ! If that's not an indication that I need to buy more Penguin Mints, I don't know what is. If anyone can translate that for me, I'd appreciate it. I think I meant to say "actually", but upon looking at that, I'm not quite sure. :)

    • Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses.

      Howard Stern ran into problems from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this article describes the actions of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

    • How does this crap get modded up? This was the FTC, not the FCC that dealt with Howard Stern.

      Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege ... at least for now.

      No. You are

  • Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:22PM (#15496830) Journal
    ""Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system," commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

    After reading TFA, this is the most remarkable line in it. Props to submitter.

    Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.

    You know what? If parents have the right to rely on an independent, private body for game ratings, then I have the right to rely on Fox News (an independent, private body, right?) for fair and balanced news, the right to have all the information presented to me. So where's Fox's fine for not presenting fair and balanced news? Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?

    /rant

    • We've had limits on "caveat emptor" for quite a while now.

      Or is it all right for a food package to put "peanut free" on food that does contain peanuts? I'm not talking about a bag of peanuts either... Candy that nominally does not contain peanuts often is "contaminated" by nearby candy producing lines.

      The basic principle in America is that an advertiser is not allowed to outright lie to you. We can all certainly debate whether that's what Rockstar did here (I, personally, do not feel that anyone was willful

      • Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RexRhino (769423) on Thursday June 08 2006, @03:29PM (#15497420)
        But buyer beware is coming back, just in a different form! For example, lets take peanuts (And peanut allergies). People are so sue happy, that companies that don't make any products with any sort of peanut ingredient are labeling their product as having peanuts to cover their asses legally. It is way easier to put a disclaimer on a package saying "this might contain peanuts", than to try to garantee a product doesn't have peanuts and face legal repercussions. It is only a matter of time (and it has damn near almost heere already), that all packages, no-matter what the food or what the circumstance is, will contain warnings about peanuts.

        People alergic to peanuts must have thought they were smart for suing about traces of peanuts in food... but soon they won't be able to know what foods contain peanuts because every company and every food product is going to protect themselves with a peanut warning.

        Same with warning on prescription drugs. Prescriptions drugs now contain warners about "side effects" that include just about every possible symptom anyone can possibly have. It is easier to just give a rediciously long list of possible side effects, than to face the consequences of a law suit. The end result is that the "side effect" warnings of prescription drugs are completly useless. Virtually all the side effects listed for a prescription drug are listed just to cover the asses of the drug maker, and so it is impossible to get any realistic side effect information on a drug from a manufacturer.

        When I buy some non-drowsy cold medicine, I don't really know if I can drive a car after taking the medicine or not, because every drug manufacturer is so afraid of a legal action that they will say not to operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinary just to play it safe.

        Likewise, if you punish video game makers frivolously, they are just going to cover their ass by making everything Mature or Adult Only. Since the vast majority of video games are purchased by adults, and since kids that purchase video games most of the time purchase it with a parent present anyway, companies are just gonna make every single game Adult Only. Wall Mart might not stock AO games now, but if that is the only way they can sell Barbie Pony Adventure and Deer Hunter, they will eventually change their policy.

        The end result for the rating system will be the same. There is no foolproof way to make sure there will never be something interpreted as "offensive" or "adult" or "suggestive" by some board or agency or group. When all games have a panel of catch all warnings and disclaimers, it is going to be harder for parents to judge a game than it is now.

    • Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.

      The difference in this

    • There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.

      It's a right in the same sense that you have a right to expect that UL approved appliances are

      • There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.

        Sure, but then it's an issue for tort suit, not for agency regulation. Without getting into

  • Glad the FTC is watching over (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zuki (845560) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:23PM (#15496839) Journal
    This was totally outrageous! Just as much of a newsworthy item as Janet's 'wardrobe malfunction'!(I couldn't sleep for 3 months after watching that one)!

    It would be a crying shame that kids should be exposed to (Godless?) non-graphical but still titillating sex simulations.

    It might detract from their training shooting hundreds of thousands of opponents, so that they can further be brainwashed into becoming our next batch of cannon fodder to send to Iraq or wherever else our glorious leaders will be "Bringing Freedom" to in the coming years.

    The FTC is only performing its patriotic duty to keep kids in line for all the state-sanctioned killing they will have to do later on.

    Although, as Dr Strangelove once pointed out, reproductive duties might also have to become state-sanctioned and even encouraged when population needs to be replenished due to a 'red button malfunction' in the Oval Orifice.

    Z.
  • Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games

    Just to be sure, if I were Take Two, I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."

    -Eric

    • Re:Disclose ALL content, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Thursday June 08 2006, @02:52PM (#15497116) Homepage
      "Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games"

      Just to be sure, if I were Take Two,

      If you plan to someday run a company you will need to learn to think through a couple of rounds of moves and countermoves. ;-)

      I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."

      And the ESRB responds: "With an attitude like that, no rating for you. Good luck talking to the buyer for Walmart."

  • Aren't ESRB ratings optional? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jclast (888957) on Thursday June 08 2006, @03:03PM (#15497215) Homepage

    How is it that Rockstar and Take2 can be fined for submitting their game to an optional software review board?

    Besides, why do we have both M and AO? The ages associated with both are 17 and 18. Drop one and leave the system alone.

    I wrote about this for eToychest [etoychest.org] earlier today, so I won't reiterate my take on the news here, but I will say this:

    Parents have access to a wealth of videogame related information. Reviews and screen captures abound on the Internet. It's time for parents to stand up and do their jobs as parents again. If you can't decide for yourself what your child should be doing, maybe you shouldn't be a parent.

  • Where's the argument? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mer1in (962105) on Thursday June 08 2006, @05:40PM (#15498417)
    GTA: San Andreas was rated M, for mature, indicating to someone who knows nothing of the franchise that there might be some mature content in there somewhere. Which, aside from Hot Coffee, there was a plethora of. If the purchaser went as far to turn the box over and read the back, they may have become aware of the ESRB's more in depth breakdown of the game, which along with "Blood & Gore" "Intense Violence" "Strong Language" and "Use of Drugs" included a "Strong Sexual Content" warning. If they went on to the read the description of the game by Rockstar, the words "Gangs" "Drugs & Corruption" "Dealers" and "Gangbangers" all in the first pargraph might have indicated to someone that this is not an apropriate game for children. Which without all that reading they could have denounced from the "17+" on both the front and back of the box. If a parent was still questioning the apropriatness of the game for their child, 5 mintues of research on the internet would have immediately removed any chance of their kids ever coming within 100 ft. of GTA again. Now yes, it is quite pheasable that older siblings, friends, careless sales clerks, etc. may have helped a few children obtain copies of the game, but the entire argument over the mod seems to be primarily about parents being misinformed. It seems pretty unlikely that had Rockstar disclosed the unnaccessible content to the ESRB that the game's rating would have really changed that much. It was an unrealistic sex mini game, which I think is declared quite adequately by "Strong Sexual Content." They may have even added a "This game includes virtual sex." warning, but it seems pretty obvious that none of these parents read the box anyways! And now everyone who's child went and willingly hacked their game to access this is outraged. I think the ESRB should be outraged that so many people pay absolutely no head to their warnings. If the game was rated AO, I'll bet just as many children would have been playing it. Because I can see informed parents saying: "Don't worry kids, its okay (hell, its even FUN) to kill police officers, kill your friends, sell, buy and use drugs & alcohol, shoot prostitutes, acquire weapons, terrorize civillians, steal cars, damage property, use racial slurs and live a life of reckless abandon, but it is NOT okay to have sex. ESPECIALLY with your girlfriend." Even if you argue that all the killing and swearing and drugs, etc. takes place in a fantasy world, so does the sex, and at that, only if you go out of your way to knowingly activate and engage in it. Kind of like the patch that revelaed the nudity uner the blurs in The Sims, except that game promoted living a good, happy, healthy life, so when people realized, it got the "Oh, its just a patch, not even part of the game!" treatment. But when parents realize exactly what this GTA game they bought their child is, and they think "Holy sh*t! What did I buy!" all that they can really fall back on is the "Well we are outraged that we didn't know about this code." Gimmie a break. I think it is these people's parenting strategy that needs to be revised, not the ESRB's rating system, or the code that Rockstar chooses to write. Take a little bit of interest in your children's life, and maybe things like this can be avoided all together.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.