Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Revokes San Andreas Rating
Alex Blonski writes "In a stunning move, the ESRB has advised retailers to stop selling Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This report follows public pressure over the Hot Coffee debacle. Rockstar, the publishers of the game have given retailers the option of restickering the game with an 18+ rating or exchanging it for a new version with the controversial content removed. ESRB head Patricia Vance says 'After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform versions of the game (i.e., PC CD-ROM, Xbox and PS2). However, the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible. The material can only be accessed by downloading a software patch, created by an independent third party without Rockstar's permission, which is now freely available on the internet and through console accessories. Considering the existence of the undisclosed and highly pertinent content on the final discs, compounded by the broad distribution of the third party modification, the credibility and utility of the initial ESRB rating has been seriously undermined.'"
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php
"However, the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible."
Right. Sure.
What would the reason be to put it in there then? Perhaps the publicity that they are getting now? My 8 y/o son would not have known about GTA except that it has been in the news lately. (Yep, an 8 y/o that watches the news)
"Rockstar, the publishers of the game have given retailers the option of restickering the game with an 18+ rating or exchanging it for a new version with the controversial content removed."
Well, I suspect that most will put a sticker on the game and continue to sell as usual. I also suspect that if a 15 y/o wants to buy one, they still will be able to do so.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
This is awesome PR for Rockstar. They're lapping it up!
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Now it's an 18+ they'll sell twice as many copies!
This is rediciulous. What if I release a patch that will just replace the textures of any game (say Windows Solitair, or some Harry Potter game) with hardcore porn? Assume the patch becomes widespread after the game has been released.
Will this... organization... advise stores to stop sell this game too?
All this time, I thought that 14-year-olds had sex because of hormones (or, in some rare cases, having actual feelings for another).
I just had to share that with you guys.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I bought it the night it came out at the local Gamestop, and quite a few underage kids were standing in line with their parents, since they apparently couldn't buy it alone. So I guess it gets enforced at some places at least.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Would such a stink be caused over fairly benign sexual content in a game - and a game called GRAND THEFT AUTO, where apparently it is perfectly acceptable to run down the street with a minigun blowing away cops and law enforcement with abandon - but throw in a blowjob, and the world is ending!
HOLY CRAP WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!
The only thing that would make this more amusing.. is if it was a homosexual mod for the game; I can imagine they'd be burning copies of the game in the Fry's parking lot. Makes me wish I had the time to hack something like that together.. oh my.
It's a game for adults, not kids. Is this not crystal clear? Slippery slope, people..
..don't panic
A kid (clearly around 13) at EBGames in line in front of me tried to buy it (GTA:SA, long before Hot Coffee). The guy behind the desk asked for his ID. The kid said he didn't have one; the EB guy said that he couldn't buy the game. Simple as that! The kid walked away embarrassed, as he should be.
It's annoying enough that I'm just buying my media online now.
What bothers me is that irregardless of the fact that this game is effectively a murder/obscenity simulator that should never fall into the hands of children forcing Rockstar to recall/modify their game or be relabeled AO is effectively censorship, albeit one that takes advantage of economics rather than legal force to effect the views of the minority over the majority. Most stores refuse to carry AO titles and therefore artificially decrease the audience for the game, putting severe pressure on the manufacturer to cater to the distribution chain by watering down their content or simply shelve products that would have been successes but for the fact that they are offered only through adult-only resellers (a chilling effect on customers who simply want to enjoy a game released as the developer intended without having porn businesses appear on their credit card statements.)
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I would also like to point out that you can beat people to death with a dildo in this game. But This , this is one step to far (or something)
How is this insightful? The rating system is an indentifier that lets mindful parents or consumer know what the game content is before purchasing the product. While I would love to have the time to play a game in all of its mode before buying the game and let my children play - it is really not the practical.
I agree with the posts upset over the fact that companies are getting slammed over parents' inability to parent, but at the same time, I think there should be at least some modicum of responsibility on the developer's part, especially when it is found that the developer knew that objectionable material existed and was not forthcoming about the existence of that material (to the point of gutless blameshifting that only makes them look more culpable once it was found that the underlying code existed on all platform versions). If Rockstar had no intention of allowing that content to be released THEN WHY DID THEY LEAVE IT IN THERE? I can understand if it was a single programmer (or maybe team) that threw in an objectionable minigame, though that seems unlikely to me, but that's not Rockstar's story so far.
Personally, I like a nice, cathartic, violent kill-fest first person shooter, and even had a lot of fun playing GTA3 and GTA:VC. I haven't played San Andreas, but this type of behaviour on Rockstar's part doesn't make me want to shell out cash to buy it now. This smells like someone wanted to include something and attempted to beat an ESRB rating by putting it in as an easter egg. Maybe possibly someone trying to challenge the ESRB's system itself; too bad for them, they've now got egg on their face.
And as someone already said, Penny Arcade's article and comic sum up the situation pretty nicely.
#define CLUE 0
puritanism and the genocide of american indians about sums it.
that without some outside controls, TV content would be dictated solely by the advertisers. And as the advertisers have shown themselves to be such a wonderful, responsible bunch in the quest for ever higher ratings and watercooler talk (read your eyeballs), the only option left to parents would be hardwiring the power switch to the off position. (Not necessarily a bad thing, but probably not what we really want)
Well said.
From his excellent site:
Our politicians are stupid. You'd really think that they've got better things to worry about (like, say, doing things that will affect more than a few million people with a certain hobby), but that seems to not be the case. Let's just threaten to launch a Senate inquiry instead.
You guys are still accepting immigrants, right? I think I'd rather be there in the UK than here. :)
Goo goo g'joob.
If all you had to do to beat a rating was release a game with a tiny patch needing to be added as well, then every sleezy porn producer would do that, and get their T rating.
Sounds like a business plan. I predict someone runs with the idea within the next couple of years.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
They maintain their sovereignity through the threat of force and retaliation. They have more active military personnel than any other country. I believe it's every male between 18 and 45 that is armed and trained. You're required to do service as part of your citizenship.
;-)
Also, they have much of the world's money.
The ESRB is an industry body, not a government regulatory agency. Participation in the ESRB is entirely voluntary.
The partent post said that it was "effectively" censorship. This is "effectively" censorship.
I would seriously question that any game with a Mature rating decreases by a significant amount the INTENDED audience for the game since, as you point out, it's so easy just to go online and purchase it from Amazon.
Not true. Movie makers have known for years that they'll sell more tickets to a PG-13 movie than an R movie. And they'll sell a hell of a lot more tickets to an R movie than an X movie (or your state's equivalent). You see, Bible-Thumpers are just fine with murder (see Iraq War, started by a "Born Again Christian" and broadly supported by Christians), but not OK with sex (they like to "be fruitful and multiply" asexually, apparently).
This makes me want to kill the ESRB board
Why? They gave GTA:SA the M rating based on the footage that Rockstar provided, and Rockstar wasn't forthcoming about the content that was on the disc -- even if the mini-game wasn't easily accessible, now all it takes is a modified save game file. Why shouldn't the ESRB revoke the rating?
Regardless of whether you think the footage is "dangerous to children" or whatever, the fact of the matter is that Rockstar misrepresented themselves and their game, and now that they've been caught, the ESRB is entirely within its rights -- in fact, if the ESRB hadn't done this, then there would be no validity to the rating system that keeps those political monkeys off the industry's back.
As far as I'm concerned, Rockstar got what was coming to them. Their peers in the video game industry should be outraged that they would pull the wool over the eyes of the ESRB, which exists to help protect all of them from being regulated by would-be thought police.
So not only those Take Two suit guys screwed and lied from the beginning, not only did they encourage modding (or at least silently blessing it) since their previous games as a way to increase their popularity (their generic EULA even encourages user-made contents), but now they are threatening all mod makers and even mod users of legal action!!!
I am completly disgust by this company.
you're making the assumption that the child will download the patch himself.
given the popularity of GTA, i think it's much more likely that a patch allowing porngraphy in the game would get passed around the schoolyard rather than downloaded individually by each child. that doesn't require any technical expertise at all. in a child's world, there's more than one way to distribute software.
Considering the hookers in GTA charge on the order of $1 a game-time-minute, a typical Grove Street prostitute runs you less than $20. In my experimentation, more often than not I've come out with a positive cash flow in the end.
Beating up hookers for fun AND profit.
Along these same lines, Rockstar and GTA have also proven to me that its not only cheaper, but better for you physically, to buy a Mr. Pibb or Andy Capp's Hot Fries than it is to actually have sex with a hooker.
On an OT note, I've discovered the quickest path to riches (at least with my gaming skill) is to become a fire fighter and I've made myself several hundred thousand dollars simply by putting-out car fires. How parents can see that this game imitates REAL LIFE is beyond me.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
If that's not enough to turn most parents off from buying their kids this game, then I don't think an AO rating that instead says "Live Hot Girls!!!" is going to stop the same behaviour. I've spent a few hours playing, and no kid of mine would ever play it, whether rated E, T, M, or AO. Parents need to educate themselves, I'm not saying go out and play every game (I pretty much do, but that's for entertainment, not education) but they could at least take 5 minutes to google it and read a couple reviews. On the other hand, most of the clerks that I and my fiance have talked to about buying or renting games for her 10 year old have been pretty honest and educated about the content, the exception are the ones that will say any game is ok.
As far as I'm concerned, this is like changing the rating of The Sims because of the nude (no blur) hack. And for the people that way, "Well, Rockstar put the sex scene in..." I say, "Maxis put boobies in." Same thing. Another way I look at it is this... So what if Rockstar put the sex scene in? They designed the game so that no one would ever see it. The only reason that we have seen it is that someone wrote a hack that exposed it to us. Blaming Rockstar for this is like blaming a woman for exposing herself if a pervert runs by and lifts up her shirt. The only way that I can see blaming this on Rockstar is if we find out that they put the code there for the explicit purpose of being exploited and/or if they leaked the hack themselves.
How are we to know they even saw the scene? Perhaps they just read press releases about the ability to modify the game to ''unlock'' sexually explicit imagery.
Who says they know how difficult it is to ''unlock'' the images and how much of the information is created in process by the people modifying the game?
Will they be upset if there were a press release that a group had discovered a modification in the form of a software patch that could be applied to a certain brand of TV or DVD player to bypass the V-chip and expect the manufacturer to recall the line or add a disclaimer prohibiting sales of the TVs/DVD players to people under 18?
I'm writing because Rockstar Games North is at the center of the future. The Hot Coffee Mod has propelled you to the front lines of the culture wars. For many hundreds of years, crafty and selfish politicians have used the empty and meaningless phrase "family values" to enrage an otherwise apathetic public and solidify their power.
The most recent self-aggrandizing political power-monger to attempt a power grab by denigrating the invented enemies of children and the family is Hillary Clinton. How hypocritical for a woman whose own family life is a public embarrassment to now attack a supposed enemy of the family. But of course it's no coincidence - it is precisely because her own family life is a joke that she must become a defender of the family. For what better way to advance her political career?
You have a choice. Rockstar Games North has created the most aesthetically important piece of art since Andy Warhol was alive. Never in the history of the narrative form has a piece encouraged with such audacity the audience's identification with an anti-social character. And yet, it's a hit. Grand Theft Auto is one of the most popular video game series of all time. The question people should be asking is why do so many people dream of being an outlaw in their personal life rather than what effect this piece of art is having on our children.
Then again, the outlaw has been a staple of the narrative form ever since the inception of the story. Men have always thrilled to tales of the criminal, the social deviant, and the outlaw. Obviously, part of the attacks on Grand Theft Auto are spurred by an anti-technological bias. It's likely that many who criticize have never even played a video game. It's even more likely that those who criticize have never played through a single game of Grand Theft Auto.
Many criticisms are based on single, isolated elements of the game, and yet where's the criticism of the game as a whole? Criticizing GTA for a single element is like criticizing Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye for a single word.
The suggestion that Grand Theft Auto could somehow harm children is laughable. How is it possible for a video game to nullify the effects of poverty, racial discrimination, lack of opportunity, and - most importantly - the natural slights children experience as a result of interacting with other children? It's not possible. And for someone to suggest that a video game has a greater influence than any of these effects, combined or individually, on the personality of a growing child, is ridiculous. Your company is being attacked and demonized by individuals and organizations concerned only with increasing their own power. Clinton's and other groups' intentions are naked, obvious, and reprehensible.
How many of us experienced violent content in art while growing up? How many of us experienced sexual content while growing up? Almost all of us. The Bible itself is full of violence and sex. Yet most of us are law-abiding citizens. In fact, I believe if the GTA audience were researched, we'd find that they are less likely to commit a crime than the general population. How likely is someone to be a criminal when they have the tenacity to make it through a 40+ hour narrative? How likely are they to be a criminal if imaginary anti-social acts satisfy them?
You need to break yourselves off from Take Two and fight the good fight. You're established now. GTA will always sell. You can make other games that push the boundaries of the art form. And, if you follow this road, you'll have no competition. Almost all other companies will be cowed and scared.
Good luck. I hope you decide to fight.
If I had kids, I'd rather them see sex than smoking, actually. At least sex has redeeming qualities!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
First, the content was fairly explicit. Check the vid: not prime-time material. Second, there is a vast difference between SIMS mods and San Andreas: the SIMS mods didn't have the content already on the disc. Apparently, all one had to do was flag a .dll file or something equally inane in order to get full access to the sex game embedded in the game. This was less like a mod since the material wasn't grafted in on top of Rockstar's content.
Berate the ESRB all you like, but their ruling is consistent with their standards, which are well-documented (as pointed out by someone above). It's pretty clear what happened here: Rockstar, or some subsidiary programmers within its company, decided to include a sex-game on its final release version, only they cut some reference out so that the content wasn't on the game. Then, lo and behold, almost coterminous with its release, this extra content is "noticed" by an outside group which publishes a patch. I don't declare myself to be an expert, but it seems dubious that this was a coincidence (though it may have been--the content may have been easily visible within the primary game data files, but that's unlikely). What seems more likely is that some Rockstar programmer called a buddy up and told him what was going on.
My theory is pretty much irrelevant though: whether the company heads knew or not is an interesting question, but it was still their responsibility to know what they were sending out to the ESRB and to stores.
The ESRB is setting the right precedent in this case. If they allowed the prior rating to go unchallenged, then any minimally intrepid programmer thereafter could foil their rankings system by simply letting it be known informally that some content was available with merely a few keystrokes. Companies could include whatever they wanted, and blame it on the 'modding' community, rendering ESRB irrelevant.
I'm not making an argument for or it against it the ESRB itself. Personally, I think that what they do serves a purpose, although in practice I'm not sure how much of a difference their ratings make. The key is parents. However, without this whole scandal, it is doubtful whether parents would have known of this at all (unless reporters deemed it worthy to follow the lead of a few disgruntled Congressmen and consumers' groups).
i know ill probly get trolled for this (partly because i said that), but that was informative and only at the end of it had any trace of trollish behaviour, and that wasnt directed at someone, merely what they said, so why the evilness?
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
Maybe it can be compared to a pass the bottle game: in part we learned again about sex from the 1001 nights - the uncensored edition - and now the arabs have to learn about sex again through commercials and late night MTV?