Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

San Andreas Banned In Australia 133

Posted by Zonk from the who-needs-choice? dept.
UoNTidal writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that following the revelation that the 'Hot Coffee' sex minigame was included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the Office of Film & Literature Classification has revoked the game's classification, making it illegal for the game to be sold in its current form in Australia. As the highest classification available [PDF link] for computer games is MA15+ (as opposed to R18+ for films that can be sold in all states and territories), the sex scenes in 'Hot Coffee' pushed the game outside the permitted content for that rating, effectively banning the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Andreas Banned In Australia More

San Andreas Banned In Australia

Comments Filter:

  • When games are outlawed... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) * <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Friday July 29, 2005 @12:59PM (#13196638) Homepage Journal
    Only outlaws will have games!

    • But... Outlaw What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Uber Banker ( 655221 ) * on Friday July 29, 2005 @01:00PM (#13196656)
      I'm consistently confused.

      Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? I San Andres I could conduct a drive-by shooting, or otherwise brutally murder someone. But having sex results in an older age limit?

      Even if this is sex with a prostitute, or going several steps further if it is rape, then surely that remains less serious than murder, or mass murder.

      It is said that murderous video games don't make murderers (on the whole, for the millions that play). Is the assumption different for other crimes, if so is there any evidence, and if not why restrict them?

      It could be said that minors (however defined) shouldn't be exposed to sex (or sex in a violent context), but then why is it more OK for them to be exposed to murder? Does anyone have a rational argument either way?
      • Does anyone have a rational argument either way?

        Some feminists believe that it leads to objectification of women that while not criminal or even evidenced by a particular act, indelibly colors a persons attitudes and treatment of women and increases the likelihood of prejudice or violence against women. The upshot is that even while you know it's just a game, and still believe that murder is bad, etc., it has a subconscious effect.

        Just as an example.

        • Re:But... Outlaw What? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Medgur ( 172679 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @01:28PM (#13196895) Homepage
          I never quite could swallow this argument.
          It seems to me that following this line of thinking leads to classifying all sex in this manner, not just viewed. That having a person act in a semi-dominant role through physical sexual positioning results in the subconscious objectification of their partner.
          Even if this were true, so what? Is it so wrong to allow your subconscious desires to objectify the attractive traits of your partner? Hell, I _like_ to be objectified. I'm certain others do as well. It's flattering and uplifting to be found attractive. Though I do expect a reasonable level of respect during close interaction, casual sexual objectification is hardly offensive.

        • Some feminists believe that it leads to objectification of women that while not criminal or even evidenced by a particular act, indelibly colors a persons attitudes and treatment of women and increases the likelihood of prejudice or violence against women.

          Except one of the parts of GTA:SA involves dressing in a gimp outfit so a dominant woman can have her way with you. If anything, that's the opposite of what feminists complain about.

        • This sounds like it's got about as much of a basis as saying that violence in games leaves us desensitized to real violence and more likely to commit violent acts.
        • That would be a good argument to ban violence on TV and in Games. Showing consensual sex should surely be a positive thing, if you followed that argument.

      • One could argue that rape "kills" a person longer -- that the victims never truely recover from it, and that it therefore causes, over time, a greater amount of harm.
        • One could argue that, I suppose...if one didn't mind being wrong.

          Death is rather permanent...its victims never 'recover' from it at all.

          If you're still alive, you still have the opportunity to try to move past your experience. When you're dead, that's it.
          • But that's just the point - if you're dead,it's over. If you're raped, the nightmare is just beginning. Perhaps I didn't express it clearly enough. My mistake.
            • Bullshit.

              When you're dead, you'll not experience any more happiness nor pain. When you're raped, you may experience happiness, and may overcome your pain. Forget it!
              • Because a rape victim MAY experience happyness that person is better off? Guess what, maybe the dead man would have had nothing but bad luck and lived a shitty life of misery. Pointless hypothetics lead nowhere, buddy.
                • It's simple maths. But I won't bother explaining maths to someone who probably needs his toes to count to 17...
                  • Okay, then you'll understand this, Mr Math PhD 1 hour X Y amount of pain 10,000 hours X Z amount of pain Go ahead, prove to me dying hurts more than being raped does, over the course of a life. This will be hilarious.
                    • It's never been more amusing to reply to trolls:

                      Death: 0 happiness minus 0 pain = 0
                      Life after rape: >= 0 happiness minus >= 0 pain can be a positive number.

                      Conclusion: Being raped can be better than being killed.
                    • You are just plain dumb.

                      By your logic, death is preferrable to anything as long as the death is painless and instantaneous. Any other existence will reult in some pain which is larger than the instantaneous, painless death. Your life's value is not defined by the absence of pain.

                      But keep arguing. Eventually you will spew out enough words that folks will get tired of arguing with you. Then you can declare victory.
                    • Well, at least I gained one idiot on my growing foe list...
                    • I'd rather just skip all the effort and declare victory now.

                      Victory is mine!

                • Because a rape victim MAY experience happyness that person is better off?

                  Exactly. It is the possibility of happiness that makes life preferable to death.

                  Guess what, maybe the dead man would have had nothing but bad luck and lived a shitty life of misery. Pointless hypothetics lead nowhere, buddy.

                  Interesting how you claim that 'pointless hypothetics lead nowhere', immediately after using such a pointless hypothetic as your main argument...
            • On the other hand, looking at a rather brutal example, my wife's grandmother was raped when she was 11 or 12. Had she been insteaed killed, my mother-in-law, wife, and children would never have been born. Even though what she went through was terrible, I'm sure she'd agree that it would be worth it to see the smiling faces of her grand and great-grandchildren, especially if the alternative were death. I know that it's somewhat erroneous to try to prove a point with a single example, but IMHO being alive
            • >>> If you're raped, the nightmare is just beginning.

              What do you mean, "the nightmare is just beginning"? Being raped was the nightmare. Once it's over, it's over. I'm not saying it's all flowers and butterflies, but it's not death either, ok? I've known girls who've been raped, and they went on to lead normal lives. The idea that rape is worse then death is sexist and comes from a time when it was easier on society if rape victims just killed themselves. It's also an easy out for the guy
        • If this were true, wouldn't it just make sense for all rape victims to immediately commit suicide? I mean, if any suffering is worse than death, a person could reduce their suffering by committing suicide. I'm not saying that rape isn't incredibly heinous and destructive to people's lives, but you seem to be asserting that life is not worth living if one has been raped, which seems a bit ridiculous in most cases.
        • I know this argument, and I understand it. When someone is raped, it usually is the beginning of a long nightmare. On the other hand, the flip side of the argument is that any survivor of sexual assault is better off dead, which I think no feminist worth their salt would agree with. And it doesn't give much credit to the survivors. I know, often it feels like one would be better off, but life is still worth living.
      • Assume that you're either a) government official or b) the elderly.

        What is the last thing you want to see? Of course, more mouths to feed. What do you want to see? Less mouths to feed.

        Thus we have legal abortions, outlawed sex, encouraged violent games, needless ground wars that can't be won, ipso facto, et cetera, et cetera...
      • Forget that, why is a poorly rendered, fully clothed comic sex game considered less serious than, say, any of the fucking porn on the Internet? Seriously! The difference is that someone actually has to spend the US$50 for the former, plus have an Internet connection and be a reasonably savvy user; for the latter, you just need to Google titties [google.com].

        You don't even need to bring the whole sex vs. violence debate into this. The fact is that GTA is a video game, so it must be evil, even if to unlock the sex sc

      • Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex?

        This particular news story isn't about that. The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified. Now that it's come to light that there is stuff in there that the certification board didn't see, and that many people have a problem with, the current certification is no longer valid until the certification board has had the opportunity to review this content.

        As the law stands in various countries,

        • This particular news story isn't about that. The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified.

          This news story is exactly about that. It is about something o extreme violence being 15 rated, yet something which contains sex, a less (if at all) violent act being 18 rated (hence unratable in Australia with the 15 limit mentioned in TFA).

          The point is exactly about why sex is considered more heinous/adult/restricted than extreme violence, else why would their placin

          • This news story is exactly about that. It is about something o extreme violence being 15 rated, yet something which contains sex, a less (if at all) violent act being 18 rated

            RTFA. All the classification board said was that they were forced to revoke the classification, and that without a classification, it couldn't be sold.

            The bit about not being able to certify a game as 18+ wasn't a quote, it doesn't say anywhere that the classification board's only option would have been to rate it as 18+, it do

            • RTFCs. Realise that the point of the discussion is not about the legal technicality of what the board can and can't do, rather why and for what end the system exists for. The point is that why classify the game as '18+ content' (or beyond as they had no classification' because it contains sex, yet not do it because it contains murderous violence. Did you miss it? If you state think to refer to the classification system for what actions mean what classification level you totally miss the point of what do
        • I agree that America is fucked up when it comes to censorship laws... but at the end of the day I realize that it could be worse. I could live in Australia.

        • The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified. Now that it's come to light that there is stuff in there that the certification board didn't see, and that many people have a problem with, the current certification is no longer valid until the certification board has had the opportunity to review this content.

          The certification board didn't see it because it's not a part of the game. And nobody else who doesn't want to see it will see it. So what's the problem? Wh

          • The certification board didn't see it because it's not a part of the game.

            Yes, it is. It's a part of the game that is normally inaccessible, but it's still part of the game. When you buy the game, you get it.

            And nobody else who doesn't want to see it will see it. So what's the problem?

            The problem is that Australia decided years ago that you should be of a certain age to buy certain material. They set up a board to decide what material should be available to what ages. This board's judgement ha

            • There is no practical difference as far as I can see. The material is on the CD, the CD, and therefore the material, is being sold.

              It's inaccessible without third party modification. It's not part of the game experience delivered to the user. I think the distinction between a mod that unlocks otherwise inaccessible content and a mod that adds new content is extremely dubious. The two cases are identical from the user's point of view. It makes no sense to treat them differently in terms of classificatio

              • I think the distinction between a mod that unlocks otherwise inaccessible content and a mod that adds new content is extremely dubious. The two cases are identical from the user's point of view. It makes no sense to treat them differently in terms of classification.

                I think it makes perfect sense. In one case, the content is being sold, in the other case, it is not. The law regulated what can be sold, so it would cover the case where the content is on the disc, but not the case where the content is obt

      • I'm thinking this might be more the preverbal straw that broke the camels back. There has always been outcry to the game play of GTA (at least in GTA3 and later), how horrific and violent and unseemly it is. And it is and that's what makes it fun, the ability to do and act as you want without worrying about consequences.
        This revelation that the developers hid sexually explicit content in the game just adds fuel to that fire. The backlash has as much to do with RockStar pushing the 'inappropriate' envelop
      • "Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? "

        How many people do you know that got pregnant in high school? How many people do you know from high school that were shot in the head or shot somebody in the head?

        It's more about perception than anything else. I'm not saying I agree that sexual content should be censored, but I can say that I'm far more worried about any kid of mine suffering negative consequences of sex than I am about them watching a violent video and killing people.
      • You underestimate the dumbness of the GTA controversy.

        The game already had sex in it. In fact, it had a mission where you rescued a prostitute from being raped and murdered by two Johns, and allowed you to have sex with bikini-clad hookers (with sound effects, steamed-up car windows and bouncing suspension), then kill them with a chainsaw.

        The game already had a strip club where you could get a private lap dance.

        Previous iterations of GTA had lesbian S&M.

        But suddenly there's a scene where two consenting
      • Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? I San Andres I could conduct a drive-by shooting, or otherwise brutally murder someone. But having sex results in an older age limit?

        The role-playing of gang violence, violence against women, violence against the police, in GTA: San Andreas appeals to a young male demographic and to no one else. The entire genre of games of which GTA has become the symbol is profoundly distrusted and despised outside the gaming community. You have to se

    • Wasn't australia FOUNDED by outlaws?

      • Re:wait, that doesnt make sense (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yup. And New Zealand was founded by inlaws. I'm not sure which is worse.
      • Wasn't australia FOUNDED by outlaws?

        Technically Oz was founded by Brits (just like the US), first as a penal colony [umich.edu] when the prison ships anchored on the Thames started to stink up the London gentry's riverside properties. Later waves of immigration (mainly in Victoria) accompanied the Australian gold rush [cultureand...ion.gov.au]. Of course, long prior to this there was a wave of immigration during the melanesian expansion that led to the Aboriginal population.

        Anyways.... I personally am rather surprised that the Aussie go

    • What an ironic post, considering Australia was more or less founded by a bunch of convicts.

      And what idiot comes up with a 15+ rating, anyway? So any game that a 20, 30, 40 or 50 year old gamer plays has to also be appropriate for a freshman in highschool?!

      Simple solution: Create an adult rating (17+ like in the states), print out a bunch of stickers with the new rating, retailers can slap them on their boxes of GTA. Duh.
    • Great. Now to get GTA in australia, your going to have to go to your local Mafia boss to get it for you.

      In fact, that could be a pretty good mini game for the next GTA.
  • Over the past couple of years, whenever there is a story about censorship involving the net or games, chances are it was coming out of Australia.

    And I used to think the US was bad in these types of things. I'm sure the congressmen senators will be going to Australia now for censorship training camps. But who knows...
  • What's next, Rockstar employees get put on no-fly lists, and are forced to walk around in public wearing special armbands?
  • If this is the only requirement to ban/reclassify games, then anything modifiable (or hackable) can and should also be banned.

    If the content is in the product, but is not able to be accessed through "normal" means (read: non modification, either via patching or device such as PAR) then why is the product being rated based on said effectively disabled content?
    • Cue the crappy tetris clone that you can sell to kids, which everybody knows can be manipulated to display hardcore pornography.

      The fact that you have to modify it is irrelevant. The fact that the hidden content is tame compared with the bits of the game where you set people on fire etc is what is important.
    • why is the product being rated based on said effectively disabled content?

      because hot coffee is not effectively disabled when it can be easily unlocked on three different platforms.

      because rockstar denied creating the sex game and became hopelessly entangled in this single, stupid, lie. its public relations offensive collapsing into mush.

  • How does adding a poorly made sex mini game somehow magically change the game?

    Killing police, running over people in cars, drive-by shootings, massive gang wars, drugs, stealing cars, prostitution, hate crimes, explicit language, and everything else in the game are somehow appropriate.

    Consensual sex mini game that isn't very graphic or raunchy? BAN BAN BAN BAN!!!

    If you want to ban GTA:SA for the violence, drugs, and language that's fine by me. If all of a sudden sex is so wrong to be a bannable offens

    • Hear, hear!

      By the way, if these jerks ever saw MTV, or your average hip-hop music video in any other music channel, I think they would die of heart attack. Maybe they're too busy attacking games to watch tv.

    • "If you want to ban GTA:SA for the violence, drugs, and language that's fine by me."

      Why exactly is that fine with you? Banning a game for its content, regardless of what that content is, is bad for the rights of the citizens to freely express themselves. Let Rockstar peddle what they want [and make sure it is properly labelled by some sort of organization that is not affiliated with the government] and have the market sort it out.

      It's a little disturbing that you're in favor of banning games.

    • How does adding a poorly made sex mini game somehow magically change the game?

      Because it shows a nipple!
      Nipples are the third worst thing on this planet. Visual contact automatic morphs every boy/girl (age 8 or above) into a TeRRoRist.
      The second worst things are musilm terrorists.
      The worst thing is to challenge the authorities

      What I see from my perspective (good old Europe) is that there is a christian talibanisation of the USA.

      Need examples?
      - violence in TV is okay - 30 seconds of nipples leads to an outcr
    • San Andreas is now Sans Australias.

    • I am an Australian, but I moved before this happened. One of the many reasons I left is because of what I would describe as the political climate of the country.

      Frankly I don't like where the country is going and politically I seemed to be in a minority. There are other places in the world that seem to better fit what I feel is right. Like I said though, there are many other reasons I left.

      People have brought up the whole Adult game rating issue several times in Australia, but the Government has clearly

  • assuming that MA15+ means 15 and older, does that mean that an Australian 15 yo kid is equally equipped to handle graphic violence as a 17 yo kid in the US?

    • Well, lets see: the legal age for sex here is 16, the legal age for violent video games is 15, yet we have a lower rate of teenage pregnancy and shooting fatalities than the US. Coincidence? Perhaps not...
  • Like Robert Heinlein said: "government is 3/4 parasitic and the rest stupid fumbling". Just another instance of the really fucked up governments we've created and given power. More and more I think we should line all the politicians up and shoot them. Get me close enough to any of the bastards behind this and I'll spit in his face.

    Also, to anyone in Australia who needs GTA I'm sure you can find someone elsewhere who will mail it to you for the cost of the game + shipping. I'd be happy to. Or hit limewire,
    • I'm sure you can find someone elsewhere who will mail it to you for the cost of the game + shipping.

      And there's the distinct posibility the Federal Police will turn up on your doorstep to make inquiries about importation of prohibited materials.

      Don't think its possible? People were arrested for importing "Lady Chatterly's Lover" in the '50s by mail, credit card records make the job just that much easier.
    • More and more I think we should line all the politicians up and shoot them. Get me close enough to any of the bastards behind this and I'll spit in his face.

      Get a grip. GTA began as a video game. If it has become something more to you, if you keep talking to strangers like a man about to go postal, then just maybe the other side has a point.

  • We're still trying to get an adult games rating out here in convict-land. Australian Adult Gamers [ausgamers.com]was the fore-front of an organised effort but it looks like the site has gone and I cannot find a replacement
  • How would Australian politicians feel if they found out about the unseemly underbelly of MMOG's? Seriously, for a second, what's so different from poor Johny (protect the childrens!) applying a mod to a game and seeing content that's at the very least R-rated (haven't seen it m'self, dunno how bad it is) and poor Johny stumbling into someone's weird little chat in a MMOG? Or, forgetting games altogether, a chat room?
  • And GTA:SA never had that hot coffee mod turned on by default. It's the same as nude skins in The Sims s, which I assume is rated T for Teens.

    The Sims 2 should get banned in Australia too, and a whole other list of games I'm sure someone else would provide here.

  • At least there is a written rating guide... (Score:4, Informative)

    by LordEd ( 840443 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @01:20PM (#13196820)
    At least there is a specified rating guide for content instead of an arbitrary one. According to Australian rating codes from TFA, the mini-game pushes it beyond the acceptable rating in the sex category. A mini-game is a little bit more than implied (although it is still modified in order to access the content).

    MA15+: The impact of material classified MA 15+ should be no higher than strong.

    THEMES: The treatment of strong themes should be justified by context.
    VIOLENCE: Violence should be justified by context. Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.
    SEX: Sexual activity may be implied.
    LANGUAGE: Strong coarse language may be used. Aggressive or very strong coarse language should be infrequent.
    DRUG USE: Drug use should be justified by context.
    NUDITY: Nudity should be justified by context.

    R18+: The impact of material classified R 18+ should not exceed high.
    THEMES: There are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes.
    VIOLENCE: Violence is permitted. Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.
    SEX: Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is "simulation, yes - the real thing, no".
    LANGUAGE: There are virtually no restrictions on language.
    DRUG USE: Drug use is permitted.
    NUDITY: Nudity is permitted.

    • At least there is a specified rating guide for content instead of an arbitrary one. According to Australian rating codes from TFA, the mini-game pushes it beyond the acceptable rating in the sex category. A mini-game is a little bit more than implied (although it is still modified in order to access the content).

      I agree the ratings code is much better. My problem with the whole re-rating exercise is that the game-experience, as delivered to the user has not changed: it does not include this mini-game.

  • The Overall Stupidity Quotient of the world just reached a record level...

    Unbe-fucking-leavable...

  • TO MODERATORS: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Boing ( 111813 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @01:20PM (#13196825)
    Seriously, there have been like fifty stories about Hot Coffee on Slashdot, and yet each time the same comments get modded up:
    1. Violence and crime are worse than consentual sex.
    2. The sex minigame wasn't even accessible without modification/it's very difficult to access it.
    3. Parents who bought a game called "Grand Theft Auto" for young kids shouldn't be able to yell at other people about irresponsibility.
    4. It's much easier to get real porn than to get this mod.
    5. All this is just politicians trying to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd.
    6. (this one doesn't apply so much to Australia) The difference between its old rating and its new rating is only one year of age.

    So moderators: I'm only half kidding when I say that these posts should be marked "Redundant", not insightful or interesting. Not anymore.
    • Moderators cannot assume that other people have read the comments on other stories on San Andreas. As to the stories themselves being redundant, well this is one huge story, likely it will change the face of gaming forever.
  • "As the highest classification available [PDF link] for computer games is MA15+ (as opposed to R18+ for films that can be sold in all states and territories), the sex scenes in 'Hot Coffee' pushed the game outside the permitted content for that rating, effectively banning the game."

    But but, but Bill Gates said "MA15+ ought to be high enough a rating for anybody"!
  • A game being banned because of content which is disabled and requires installing a mod to enable it? I sincerely don't see why there should be any legal difference between the content being already on the CD and it being added by a mod (which isn't the case). But what do I know?

  • Huh. (Score:2)

    by saintp ( 595331 )
    You know, it just occured to me that anyone savvy enough to download the Hot Coffee mod would also be savvy enough to download the whole damn game. So who have they stopped from seeing a poorly-rendered, fully-clothed comic sex game? Not a single goddamned person. They have, however, prevented plenty of innocent 17- to 26-year-old white males from knowing the sublime joy that is unloading two sawed-off shotguns into a cop.

  • However (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:00PM (#13197215) Journal
    Selling hardcore pornography in Australia is still perfectly legal, even in the form of a game, so long as it's name is not GTA: San Andreas.
  • I could be wrong, but wouldn't "modding" this game in order to unlock the Hot Coffee mission entale cracking the game? Wouldn't this be a violation of the DMCA here in the US? If so, then why doesn't Rockstar/Politicians just prosecute everyone who has unlocked this mission? Sure its hidden in the game, but if it takes an illegal act to access, why is Rockstar to blame? Silly political posturing....
    • Actually, since Australia signed the Fair Trade Agreement with the US we have our very own DMCA, so the strategy could theoretically work here, too.

  • Uh oh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dormann ( 793586 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @02:32PM (#13197563)
    I wonder if Australia knows about the vile sexual imagery I was able to unlock in Mario Paint?

    • Hacks in Mario Paint are more like the nude hacks for The Sims games than like the Hot Coffee hack for GTA:SA. There's a big legal difference between unlocking a door to a room that already existed (Hot Coffee) and adding completely user-created content to a game (Nude Sims, Mario Porn).

  • I'm confused about the use of the word "ban". By the sounds of it, the game cannot legally be sold. But that doesn't mean it's banned. If you already have a copy, surely you're still allowed to run it?
    • It's banned from sale. Apparently you're easily confused.
  • I can just shake my head. sex in a game. Needs to be banned. Blowing heads of innocent bystanders, no problemo, go ahead.

    HOW stupid has the world become? Perhaps its time for some astroid wipeout. So that we again NEED sex to survive :)

    [btw, I just had sex and it was definitly better than holding and shooting any gun]

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close