Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Hot Coffee In The Retail Space 80

Posted by Zonk from the ouch dept.
Gamasutra has a piece talking to the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association's Hal Halpin about the impact of recent gaming news on the retail space. From the article: "As of this minute, [the game retail industry's] three major opponents are the State of California, the State of Illinois and the State of Michigan ... More specifically, they are those states' respective attorney generals and their governors, who each signed into law bills which their legislatures knew full-well would be in violation of the First Amendment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hot Coffee In The Retail Space More

Hot Coffee In The Retail Space

Comments Filter:
  • Was Hot Coffee actually in the game with a cheat code? Or was it something a bunch of hackers did and changed the code? It still boggles my mind why Senators weren't upset with the gangster and other sexual things in the game.

    • Re:Riddle me this (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RoadDoggFL ( 876257 )
      What gets me about the Hot Coffee deal is the reasoning behind it, something along the lines of:

      "A technically proficient minor could unlock content that's not suitable for those under the age of 18."

      Right. Because a kid who can work his way through the Hot Coffee modding process can't find his own (real) porn on the internet. Might as well ban that too (though I bet they could at times).
      • Might as well ban that too (though I bet they could at times). They signed a bill banning obscene material on the Internet... I think 1997. It was declared unconsitutional (first amendment) and repealed soon after.

        • Re:Riddle me this (Score:3, Informative)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          They signed a bill banning obscene material on the Internet... I think 1997. It was declared unconsitutional (first amendment) and repealed soon after.

          There were a few attempts. However, it was how the law was constructed, not the actual goal of restricting the supplying of adult materials to children, that was at issue. So you can't reasonably imply that because those laws failed, that therefore government cannot restrict people from providing adult material to children.

          And I am still pissed at the EFF o
          • such as saying the Starr Report would be illegal under COPA, despite the fact that it was quite clearly exempted under the "serious political interest" clause

            It wasn't the report itself that had people up in arms, it was the accompanying image of Kenneth Star sporting a chubby while he typed it that really bothered people. Describing Lewinsky as "sultry" and "no better than she should be" didn't help his cause, IMHO.
            • No, you're completely off-base and off-topic. I am not talking about the politics surrounding the Starr Report, I am talking about COPA, and the fact that the EFF made the deceptive and false argument that COPA would make the Starr Report illegal to post online.

    • Re:Riddle me this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @04:40PM (#14103224) Homepage
      Actually, it was beyond a cheat code - it was a hack. There was no way to expose the disabled content in the game without pushing bits around manually. Afaik, you had to hexedit a savegame or gamestate or something to expose it. People then uploaded the hacked savegame file that you could DL to try it.

      The problem is that there is no real analogy for it in the real world. Most other forms of media can't include unviewable content in any expressible form. Imagine if a VHS tape had a porn movie outside of the margins of the screen - you'd have to practically break your VCR to view it. Or a book had 2 pages glued together with dirty pictures on them - but the only way to expose it was with chemical solvents that you'd have to go to a specialty store to buy.
      • Reminds me of a story about how leftovers from a printing of an oriental erotic book got used in a children's book. I can't find reference to it on Google though.
    • The PC version involves a hack.

      The PS2 version is unlockable with an Action Replay MAX [codejunkies.com] code (or, rather, long list of codes).

      I don't remember if the blocky pixel-nudity is part of the original minigame, or a patch to go along with the PC hack.


      Either way, it is not something you can just sit down and enter some sort of controller/keyboard code to access. It is not part of the actual game, and it cannot be accessed in-game, though whether it was ever intended to be--or if it was inserted by individ
    • Was Hot Coffee actually in the game with a cheat code?

      Hot Coffee was found in the PC, PS2 and X-Box pressings of the game.

      Rockstar's reckless "don't look at us" PR offensive backfired disastrously in Congress and the state legislatures, where the gangster game gene is equally poisonous and potent politically whether you represent the inner city or the suburbs.

    • ### Was Hot Coffee actually in the game with a cheat code?

      It was on the game discs, but only reachable via save-game hacking and neither via gameplay or via a simple cheat-code.

      Does anybody know other games where affected by the aftermath of the 'Hot Coffee' dicussion. I know that the US Version of Indigo Prophecy had three scenes removed due to probally offending content, any other games that got cut for the US release? And what would have happened if they didn't cut those scenes (contain some nudity and s

  • Wait a minute.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sesshomaru ( 173381 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @04:01PM (#14102912) Journal
    "Attorney Jack Thompson is someone whom I believe has his heart in the right place actually," Halpin said. "I think it's clear to all involved that he earnestly believes his perspective shall be the one to prevail and he is willing to put all of himself - personally and professionally - into that fight...a position which I don't see countered on the 'pro' side of the debate. That said, we take issue with his opinion that our members have not done enough to stem the sale of Mature-rated games to minors, and in that regard, we appear to be adversarial."
    This is extremely sad, and really makes me wonder if this guy has studied Jack Thompson at all. No one who actually knows anything about him would think that his heart is in the right place. There are actually probably some credible people on the anti- side of this debate, who I will oppose to my death, but Jack Thompson is not one of them.

    Heck, I consider David Grossman to be another dishonest huckster, but he's like a pillar of honesty compared to Thompson. (Remember him? He used to have Thompson's part in this debate. I miss those days.)

    Just read the man's (Jack's) words, he come across as a dishonest, bigoted grandstander whose primary concern is stroking his own massive Ego. I don't get why this guy is treating him like someone who is taking a reasonable, morally responsible position here.

    • Heck, I consider David Grossman

      Wasn't he they guy who said Doom could train marines to kill people?
      • Yes, hence "dishonest huckster."

        He also said that the army's soldier to killbot programming machine was made by Nintendo. He's not really that different than Thompson, really, just slightly quieter.

    • but it doesn't occur to him that he might have to take the log out of his own eye before he can demonstrate to others where the spinters are.

      He just doesn't seem to understand that his conduct is atrocious no matter how many judges tell him so.

      His mental illness isn't bad enough for him to be considered "insane" (or at least it wasn't when they had him tested), but he needs to be diagnosed and treated. His behavior goes well beyond that of mere egotism.
  • Is it just me or does this entry leave you clueless as to what the story is actually about?

  • Right.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by steveo777 ( 183629 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @04:14PM (#14103005) Homepage Journal
    From TFA "My personal opinion is that there should absolutely be more AO-rated product available in the market. While I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, I believe in expression, and I also would hope that like music and movies adults interested in purely adult content should be able to purchase or rent similar content on differing media"


    He also speaks in favor of Jack Thomson's efforts saying that the only front he disagrees with is the limitation of MA or AO games to the public in general... which is the only issue Thompson ever argues about (well, I know he'd like it banned, but that's not going to happen).

    Personally, I agree that certain content should NEVER fall into the hands of minors. I don't care what the parents say. There is no such thing as a non-impressionable teenager. You can tell me how independent you or your kids are, but right up till you die your environment has an impact on you.

    Any parent who thinks their 13 year old son is old enough to handle extreme violence (killing bystanders for fun), sexuality (nudity, scantally clad women/men doing their thing, porn), or drug use (the support of it) in any video games/movies (very few exceptions) more than likely would rather let the game machine and TV raise thier kids than step up to the plate. At any rate, they're not okay in my book.

    The article doesn't make much sense, and it's kind of hard to understand if this guy's got a point.

    They're worried about their wallets. This guy doesn't care what's actually in the game. Free speech is to keep voices from being quelled on a political front, for the most part. They aren't being silenced anyway. We aren't violating free speech, we're protecting our kids', and thier future's!

    • Re:Right.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 )
      What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for? Up until very recently in our social eveolution, people were going to war, getting married and having children at that age. Young people haven't become more stupid over time... if anything they are collectively more intelligent. The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person.

      • Re:Right.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Naikrovek ( 667 )
        "What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for? Up until very recently in our social eveolution, people were going to war, getting married and having children at that age. Young people haven't become more stupid over time... if anything they are collectively more intelligent. The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person."

        Do you know any 13 year olds? There is nothing about any 13 year old that is ready for sex except their bodies, and even that is borderline.

        Y
      • What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for?

        The part where one of them gets pregnant, even though neither of them are capable of supporting the child, or themselves.

        • Previous poster does make a highly valid point that we're de-volving as a species in this respect.

          A 13-year old in the middle ages could hunt, fight, and raise a family. I'm 25 and can't do any of those things :(
      • What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for?

        Any and every part the parent says they are not ready for.

        The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person.

        No, the problem is that you are treating parents as less than parents.
        • No, the problem is that you are treating parents as less than parents.

          No, that's what the government is doing with all these laws. And said "parents" seem to like it just fine.
          • No, that's what the government is doing with all these laws.

            I know many people think so, but they -- like you -- are wrong. If this were true, then every law that makes it illegal to provide something to a minor is "treating parents as less than parents." Society doesn't agree with you, and thinks you're a looney.

            I don't think you're a looney, I just think you're ignorant. But society really does think you're a looney, because you think that some guy I've never met has the right to make the decision to s
            • , because you think that some guy I've never met has the right to make the decision to sell adult material to my child, without my consent. And it's hard to come up with an idea that is loonier than that.

              Where did I say he had that right? I said that KEEPING him from doing it without your consent is YOUR job, not the government's.

              And you can call me loony all you want (even if you insist on doing it in a thinly-vieled backhanded fashion), but the simple fact is anyone who thinks that laws based on this kind
              • Where did I say he had that right?

                It was directly implied by your opposition to legislation the sole purpose of which is to say he does not.

                I said that KEEPING him from doing it without your consent is YOUR job, not the government's.

                So I may arrest him if he violates my parental rights? Or sue him?

                the simple fact is anyone who thinks that laws based on this kind of thought process will only keep "objectional" material out of the hands of minors, and not interfere with consenting adults getting their hands
                • Or sue him?

                  Bingo. A far better solution than the one they are offering.

                  Um ... name one way -- just one -- in which this would interfere with an adult's access to such materials. I can think of one and only one myself: an adult who looks young who has no identification proving his age. But that's such a tiny amount of people, and such people are extremely unlikely to have a gaming machine anyway, that I don't think it is significant. Have you got any other way?

                  Yes. When these laws prove just as incapable of
                  • Bingo. A far better solution than the one they are offering.

                    Um, except that it is perfectly legal and there is therefore no grounds for a lawsuit. So, um, no.

                    Yes.

                    No, you don't.

                    When these laws prove just as incapable of keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors as they are keeping porn, booze, cigarettes, and drugs away from them, the "think of the children" crowd pushes for outright bans.

                    But those movements are never successful, so who cares what they push for?

                    Failing that (as they will), the
                    • Um, except that it is perfectly legal and there is therefore no grounds for a lawsuit. So, um, no.

                      That's because they made THIS law instead. The one where *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.

                      But those movements are never successful, so who cares what they push for?

                      When I was in elementary school, they said the same thing about legislating Xianity. Funny what changes in twenty years.

                      Either way, you are quite obviously and clearly wrong in your ch
                    • That's because they made THIS law instead. The one where *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.

                      It's a simple fact that the basis of this law is about one thing only: to protect the rights of parents. That you deny this only shows you have nothing intelligent to say about this issue.

                      It's also true that you have continued to neglect to differentiate this law from others that protect children, and thereby align yourself with those would get rid of a
                    • It's a simple fact that the basis of this law is about one thing only: to protect the rights of parents. That you deny this only shows you have nothing intelligent to say about this issue.

                      I don't deny this. That's the problem. It protects the rights of parents at the expense of the other taxpayers. That's the problem.

                      It's also true that you have continued to neglect to differentiate this law from others that protect children, and thereby align yourself with those would get rid of all such laws, which puts y
                    • I don't deny this.

                      You're lying. You denied it several times. Here:

                      *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.

                      Except it is not about supervision of the child, but protection of parental rights. And more directly you denied it here:

                      The intent of this law is to mask your incompetence and let the government do your job for you.

                      Again, no, it is about protecting parental rights.

                      So, you're a liar.

                      Having them disagree with me is the highest praise I could a
                    • You're lying. You denied it several times.

                      That's a mighty big accusation from one with your apparent selective reading comprehension. I never said it didn't protect parents rights. As you quoted me:

                      *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.

                      This is a given. Criminal trials are paid for at taxpayer expense. That has nothing to do with parental rights. Complete red herring.

                      Except it is not about supervision of the child, but protection of parental rights
                    • This is a given. Criminal trials are paid for at taxpayer expense.

                      Um, you're missing the point. I was focusing on the second part of the sentence, where you deny what you said you affirm: that the point of the law is parental rights. Instead you said the point is lack of ability to supervise.

                      Six of one, half dozen of the other. There's no denial there.

                      Ok, so you're not a liar, you're just stupid. Because no, "parental rights" and "parental incompetence" are not remotely the same thing.

                      How do I have it ba
                    • Um, you're missing the point. I was focusing on the second part of the sentence, where you deny what you said you affirm: that the point of the law is parental rights. Instead you said the point is lack of ability to supervise.

                      No, you're missing the point, as in that they are the same point. Let me put this in small words since slashdot doesn't have support for a "big letters in crayon font."

                      This bad law protects your parental rights by taking getting ME involved in your parenting by making me pay for your
                    • This ... law protects your parental rights

                      So now you are once again denying your own words. First it was not about parental rights, then it was, then it was not again, and now it is again.

                      Ow, whiplash!

                      I count 4 failures on your part

                      And I count one more time you are explicitly hypocritical by claiming on the one hand my parenting is none of your business, and then proceeding to criticize my parenting.

                      To put it more clearly, ONLY incompetant parents are whining about "parental rights."

                      And only incompetent pe
                    • So now you are once again denying your own words. First it was not about parental rights, then it was, then it was not again, and now it is again

                      You do realize that my post remains visible completely visible, right? Your selective quoting, and subsequent response to, only of half of a point only makes you look like a tool.

                      And I count one more time you are explicitly hypocritical by claiming on the one hand my parenting is none of your business, and then proceeding to criticize my parenting.

                      Wow, you are surp
                    • You do realize that my post remains visible completely visible, right?

                      Hell, I'm counting on it. That's how people can read and see my analysis is correct.

                      You EXPLICITLY WANT your parenting to be public business.

                      Only if you define "parenting" in a patently ridiculous way (which you do).

                      Holy shit. Selling a kid a video game is the same as attempted murder?!

                      No, why would you think so? I certainly didn't say it. Try reading again, maybe?

                      What I did was show how your logic ("government helping parents" == "unw
                    • Hell, I'm counting on it. That's how people can read and see my analysis is correct.

                      Given your shoddy logic, twisting of facts and arguments (when you don't downright ignore them), and tendency to fall to the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la, I can't hear you, stupid head!" I don't have a lot of fear that anyone who has the required level of intelligence that I should give a damn about them would agree with your analysis.

                      Holy shit. Selling a kid a video game
                    • You equated the cops hunting down the guy who tried to run your kid down with the cops busting the pimply-faced kid at the local GameStop selling him an objectional game. If that isn't what you meant, maybe you should proofread better.

                      I didn't do it, so maybe you should read better? Again, what I did was point out that your logic, your absolute statements, does not differentiate between those things.

                      Attempting to run someone down with a car is, and should be, a crime no matter the AGE of the victim.

                      Whether
                    • I didn't do it, so maybe you should read better? Again, what I did was point out that your logic, your absolute statements, does not differentiate between those things.

                      You did do it. If you want to deny it, fine. That's all you.

                      So what's the differentiating factor that makes selling adult material to kids not OK for the government to be involved in, but makes having sex with kids OK for the government to be involved in?

                      Severity, for starters. Again, rape is a crime, and rightly so, regardless of the victim'
                    • Again, rape is a crime, and rightly so

                      That's begging the question. I am saying selling adult materials to minors without parental consent should also be a crime, you're saying it should not. Simply saying one is a crime and the other is not is no argument.

                      In the case of "grabbing your gun and finding the guy," that it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement would be written in whatever local laws prohibit vigilantism.

                      No such laws exist. Thankfully. If you thought I meant I would execute him, then yes,
                    • That's begging the question. I am saying selling adult materials to minors without parental consent should also be a crime, you're saying it should not. Simply saying one is a crime and the other is not is no argument.

                      Again, you snipped out that I further expanded the point later. It's not "begging the question" it's answering the point later.


                      No such laws exist. Thankfully. If you thought I meant I would execute him, then yes, there are laws against that; but I meant no such thing. My intention would be to
                    • It's not "begging the question" it's answering the point later.

                      I don't believe you did.

                      It's still sticky, though, as making a citizen's arrest doesn't afford you the protection from lawsuits that the cops have.

                      Yep. As it should be.

                      I did. You decided to snip and ignore them. See "Flat earth" and "blacks are 3/5 of a person" for examples of the "People" being wrong.

                      No, you're missing the point. I didn't say the people can't be wrong. I said the burden of proof is on you to show it. In those cases you ment
                    • I don't believe you did [answer the point later].

                      You don't seem to beleive a lot of things, regardless of what evidence may be presented. I doubt I'm going to change that.

                      I never stated or implied this was about a child doing a wrong thing
                      --
                      The law has nothing to do with the discipline of the child, but the actions of the retailers, so attacking it on the basis of an aid to discipline is simply wrong.

                      Really? I seem to remember... yes, here it is.

                      by pudge (3605) * Freak on Monday November 28, @04:57PM (#14

  • making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. Perhaps you should read that amemdment again. No one's free speech is being squelched.

    minors aren't full citizens of the united states, ask any attorney. Its the reason that many minors get away with murder and its the reason that your record is *supposed* to be wiped clean when you turn 18. Nothing in the constitution says anything about giving gaming rights t
    • Declaration of Independence, while not binding law, indicates that the people who founded the US beleive that Rights cannot be granted or rescinded by the government, as they are a gift from God (or Nature, for yon Athiests)

      "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
    • minors aren't full citizens of the united states, ask any attorney.

      Actually, they are.

      Nothing in the constitution says anything about giving gaming rights to people that are not citizens of the United States.

      The Constitution guarantees rights, it doesn't grant them. And at any rate, the 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments protect the rights of all people in the United States to play video games.

      making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's
    • making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. Perhaps you should read that amemdment again. No one's free speech is being squelched.

      The real point here is not that this content can be kept from children by government edict. Indeed, the laws in question don't do that. Instead, they do what has always been a protected right by the government: they protect the right of parents to make that decision. The govern
      • The laws say, in effect, "it is the right of parents, and parents alone, to determine whether the child should have GTA."

        Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this? If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!

        Do kids go out and buy their own consoles with lunch money? I don't think so...

        If the kid is earning enough money on his own
        • Oh sorry this comment wasn't directed at you... Just the situation and bad parenting around the USA.
        • Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this?

          Because retailers recklessly violate the wishes of the parents, often.

          If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!

          Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Just because I give my child money and send them off into the world, hopefully to do the right thing, doesn't mean that anyone should be abl
          • If I want my child to have a TV to watch PBS and play educational games I've approved, who the hell are you to tell me, the parent, that I shouldn't?

            I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?

            If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren't you taking the TV away from them?

            I'm not asking people to beat their own kid or anything. Just take a bit more personal r
            • I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?

              No, you did not. Please don't lie to me, especially when the record is absolutely clear. It's just insulting.

              What you said is that if I don't want them doing one thing, I should not let them do another: that if I don't want them playing games, to not let them have a TV.

              If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren'
            • Looking at the sibling post, I notice that insulting those who call him on his incompetence seems to be a pattern with this guy.
    • It doesn't limit their speech, but it -does- limit their freedom to exercise their right to perceive information of their choosing.
    • *Gags* from your pseudo-logic. Try fully thinking things through before you post. First, minors are guaranteed rights under the Constitution. Ask any attorney. But more importantly, these laws do violate the game producers' first ammendment rights by having a chilling effect on the availability. You see, by making it illegal to sell games in the manner that these laws propose, they make it very difficult to sell any games to minors. (Take a good read at Michigan's law. It bans more than just M and AO games
    • Minors are citizens of the United States, actually, and do enjoy constitutional rights (you can no more execute a 60 day old without a trial than you can a 60 year old). Minors also enjoy First Amendment protection, subject to some narrow restrictions in a few settings like education (see, e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969)). You might find the following instructive:

      Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. L

  • "We decided then that we'd tie up with children's charities and donate the games to hospitals, shelters, homes and schools..."

    Great, until they donate their excess copies of "Hot Coffee" capable GTA...
  • I think that if something's a product designed to make money it's much harder to make a case for it being free speech. You're not trying to express your opinion, or even necessarily yourself, you're trying to make money. Freedom of speech protects your right to say things, it does not entitle you to do things which can be seen as harmful to others. If I hand crafted a bear trap, then set it up on the capital steps, the some poor senator stepped in it, and I got arrested, i dont think a "freedom of speech

  • Hot Coffee aside, the guy states that his group (and I'm talking EB games) has expanded shelf space for PC games in recent years. You gotta be kidding me! I've seen the space for PC games have a 3 month half-life.

    And with XBOX 360 here, PS3 and new Nintendo coming up quick, all the PC titles they display will be in a shoe-box under the game guides...

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close