Hot Coffee Cooling Off
The storm of media and cynicism that was "Hot Coffee" is, thankfully, coming to an end. To wrap things up, reactions were mixed to the re-rating of GTA. Some thought it too much, some too little too late. With the removal of the M rating, ESRB president Patricia Vance considers the matter closed. Even those in the industry itself seem glad that it's over, though the folks quoted for the 1up story seem cynical about the whole thing. "[Rockstar] TOTALLY screwed the modding community, as far as I am concerned. Because they could have just removed the content. They tried to get cute and leave it in. In my experience that sort of thing is always deliberate. Anyway, the point is that most game developers are recalcitrant and immature jerks. When mom tells us we can't do something, we're sure as hell going to do it. If you get my meaning. I think 'mom' in this case was the ESRB." As a sidenote, stock in Take-Two Entertainment dropped by almost five percent at close of market today, on the news that even Gamestop is dumping the now AO-rated GTA title.
I for one am very glad that this whole debacle is over. I think it's somewhat ridiculous that people are angry at Rockstar. AFAIK, GTA:SA is rated M for violence and sexual content. Why must it be AO now? This certainly wasn't hardcore porno, it was not even as bad as what you see on cable late at night.
And to think that GameStop is not going to sell the game anymore? Regardless, it's well out of the spotlight now, but the game they stop selling today is the game that they were hyping the hell out of for pre-orders 1 year ago. I don't care what the ESRB rating is, nothing has changed.
I certainly don't think kids should buy this game, regardless of the sex, they shouldn't be exposed to that kind of violent content. However, it's now a pain in the ass for me if I want to buy a copy. It seems I can no longer go into my local videogame store and pick it up, I'll have to order it online and wait. I wonder if it will arrive in a plain brown envelope. Wouldn't want the neighbors or mailman to know I'm getting such perverted things in the mail.
Don't buy WoW Gold! Make it yourself!
Let's see the game is about black men running around smacking hoes and doing drive bys and most people don't have a problem with this. But, once you add some sex into the game there are congressional hearings. Stupid America, when will you ever learn?!
-Dipster
GTA: SA was the best-selling console game of 2004, despite only being published on one platform at the time. Are we seriously expected to believe major retailers will forever keep the evil, evil GTA games off their shelves? Why should Rockstar Games/Take Two?
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
On the one hand, in the USA, you can easily buy a rifle or a machine-gun with ammunitions. On the other hand you can't see consensual sex in a video game ? Urrr.
\u262D = \u5350
Despite all the bad publicity about this game, I can only imagine that it will have a positive effect on sales, as loads of people that otherwise would never have bought this game are now interested in it, purely because of the amount of hype surrounding it.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I'll be taking it back to the shop as soon as possible and demanding they exchange it with a copy that is suitable for a child of his age.
Good idea. GTA is, with or without sexual content, utterly inapproriate for a 12 year old.
There were hundreds of adult themed addons for the sims and the content of many of them was a lot more explicit than the Hot Coffee mod. It's ESRB Rating is T (Teen) and it is specifically designed for people to produce whatever addons they want. Considering The Sims franchise is just as famous, if not more than GTA, how come nobody cares?
According to their own criteria, the game should have been AO from the beginning. http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp "Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." The whole game is a scene of intense violence.
This is just another example of a really messed up society. Through the years, things that are considered 'bad for kids' has constantly evolved and changed. There was a time that saying 'damn' on TV was completely taboo. Today I routinely hear much worse on broadcast (let's not even talk about cable!). Every generation has had it's gripes about what the kids during that time were watching, doing, playing and saying.
Unfortunately, there has yet to be a generation where the parents take reponsibility for educating and censoring (if necessary)the content available in their own homes. Parents that do take the time to take care of their own are not the ones screaming their heads off. People argue 'What about when my kids are not at home?!'. To that I say, educate your kids! I believe kids can be taught right from wrong. Nothing will keep children from doing 'bad' or seeing 'bad' things once in a while. This is a part of growing up and part of the learning process.
-- kortex "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"
The major problem was with the timeline:
It wasn't so much the sex, but the lies that got people up in arms about Rockstar. (No videotape this time, at least) We don't like being made to look like fools, and so the ESRB lowered the boom on GTA:SA.
I, on the other hand, am willing to throw brickbats all of the involved parties:
A plague, not on one, not on both, but on all your houses!
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
What baffles me the most is that M (for mature) is rated as being for customers "17 and older", while AO is for customers "18 and older." That's not a huge difference. One year. What does a 17 year old not know that an 18 year old is suddenly an expert at these days? Especially since I regularly get my ass handed to me by 16 years olds (or younger) on many online games, I fail to see how a rating system would make any sort of difference to a game like this. If I'm 16, I'll probably find the means to get this game one way or the other.
Also: there isn't any nudity in this game (not even, specifically, in the hot coffee segment where one would expect it.) It's quite obviously cartoonishly presented. I can understand the uproar over Manhunt, which is by comparison very detailed and brutally violent. But this is to my mind one of the most ridiculous "debacles" I've ever heard of. Anyone who assumes that a game named "Grand Theft Auto" is for teenagers is living in a fantasy world. Why it takes a sticker saying "AO" versus "M" to drive this home is beyond me. Does this mean I can make a game called "Assassinate The President" or "Serial Rapist" and expect the rating to determine whether Walmart will carry it or not?
And where are the freakin' parents? Out carjacking?
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
The sex part is being used by those trying to excuse the fact that they knowningly did something they were not supposed to. In other words they were trying to trivialize it by attempting to put the blame on the people who complained!
Just because your values or my values do not align themselves with others in no way makes ours superior.
Many of these programmers do act like jerks. Ever spent time dealing with MMORPG developers and you quickly find out there are many jerks and too many have god-complexes. When you point out things they should not do they quickly turn around attacking the person pointing out the issue instead of dealing with the issue.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The ESRB has been demonstrated a tool for censorship from outside, as demonstrated by the fact that a game has just been effectively banned from sale in the U.S., by way of it being moved from M to AO, based on nothing but a targeted public smear campaign. The content even in the modded "AO" version of GTA:SA is significantly tamer than the sexual content that which is already present in a very large number of M games.
This has been demonstrated by their extended attack on a game that was already "mature, 17 or older only, not to be sold to minors" with a "strong sexual content" label, an attack which apparently only ended with the effective banning of the game. Apparently these people don't care about children, they just care about either political self-promotion or imposing their morality on others, and children are just a tool to achieve this.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'd rather my kids appreciate sex than violence.
Glad it over. There, I said it too.
On one hand, I agree that this game was already intended for an audience far older than the children that lawmakers and soccer moms are trying to protect. However, with no forms of penalty to enforce the ratings on these games, nobody can expect them to follow. They're only mild suggestions without any kind of fine for selling to/buying for children under the age recommended by rating.
However, R* is also quite guilty of deliberatly hiding an easter egg in the game that (in America, anyway) dramatically changes some peoples' view on it. In a country where sex is almost strictly taboo, it was purposely sneaky of R* to put the Hot Coffee material into the game because we, as gamers and geeks, have already proven many years ago that if it can be cracked, it will. They can't just unhook the content and expect it to be done, and that's not what they did. R* left it in there for the people curious enough to find a way to get Hot Coffee.
I hope both of these parties can learn something from this. Ratings aren't effective without being enforced and unhooked content can and will always be found, cracked, and distributed on the internet within an hour.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
GTA:SA will sell no matter the age rating
I think it's true that changing from M to AO wouldn't deter most people from buying it.
It DOES, however, deter many stores from selling it. Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart have already pulled it from their shelves. I know Wal-Mart refuses to stock ANY AO-rated game, I'm not sure if the others do as well or if they were just reacting to this present controversy.
So, it might increase (or hold steady the) DEMAND, but it will also make it harder to find. Since the ostensible goal is to keep it out of the hands of people under 18 now, online stores might not be an option (no credit card).
Personally, I think the whole thing is damn stupid.
Can someone exlain this to me: Last night i was watching "That 70's show" with i belive is teen orianted program and sow a trailer for "Devils Rejects" during a comershal brake. 30 second trailer shows women raped, burned alive, people shot and cut apart. Now how is this aceptoble when a video game that you can not buy unless you are 17, and then have to go online, find a mod, download that mod, in order to to see digitaly rendered and not wery realistic simulated sex sine.
When will these jackass lawmakers learn that the only reason they're here -- is because of sex!!!
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
Fact: The developers at Rockstar thought that it might be fun to include a sex mini-game. Fact: This mini-game was built, but ultimately scrapped. Maybe this was because it pushed the game over the line with the ESRB, or maybe it's because the mini-game is not really funny and not very fun. Fact: There is no sex mini-game included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as shipped.
I repeat: There is no sex mini-game included in Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas as shipped. I've played the entire game, end to end, and while it does let me beat people down with a giant black dildo if I feel so inclined, the sex mini-game is just not in there.
That is not to say that the code for the sex mini-game is not on the DVD, but it is not in the game. This is an important distinction. If the mini-game is present on the DVD, but there is no way to access it while playing the game as shipped, then that sequence isn't really part of the game, any more than a deleted scene on a DVD is part of the movie.
It is common practice in software projects to strip out features as the release date approaches. Maybe the feature just doesn't work right, or it does work right but isn't really as good as everyone thought it would be, or maybe it introduces bugs, or maybe it pisses off media decency watchdogs. For whatever reason, features are disabled. This is usually done not by deleting the feature from the project entirely, but rather by deleting the calls that activate it. Deleting large chunks of code carries a huge risk in the later stages of software development, because it's easy to make a mistake that will break the build. If someone makes a mistake and deletes the wrong class file when they're taking out un-used code for something like, say, a sex mini-game that management has decided not to include in the final product, they could all too easily cause just such a problem.
Breaking the build is a Very Bad Thing, especially in gigantic projects like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which cost $50 million to develop and employed hundreds of people. At the end of the software development cycle, new builds of the program are made every night. These are copied and sent out to teams of testers, sometimes hundreds of them, who run through the program and look for bugs. These bugs get fixed, a new build is made that night incorporating those bugfixes, and the cycle continues.
If the build is broken, nobody works. If the testers don't get a new build, then they can't find new bugs, because they're still running into the old ones. If the developers don't get a new build, they can't fix other bugs, because they don't know how their changes will interact with changes they've already made. Everyone winds up sitting idle, getting some sleep, talking to their significant others, and maybe realizing that working 20 hours a day for 7 days a week at substandard wages sucks. Maybe they begin to question their sexless and empty lives, and maybe they start chatting with each other about how a union would fix all this mess before their jobs are shipped off to China, and it's too late to do anything about it.
Morale suffers, the whole project slips, deadlines are missed, analysts revise your publisher's stock downwards, and you suddenly need a new job.
So instead of making a major change like deleting the entire mini-game, it's much safer to make a small change, like deleting the parts of code that start the mini-game. If there is no way to invoke certain parts of a program, then those parts may as well not exist. This is so common in software projects, both for business and entertainment programs, that the current controversy surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas seems from the perspective of the software world like a tempest in a teapot. Grand Theft Auto III had code for a half-completed fourth island on the DVD. Knights of the Old Republic II, which is notorious for its terrible and seemingly unfinished ending, had the voice acting and artwork for
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Could Rockstar have done this on purpose to increase sales? If the 'hackers' hadn't exposed HotCoffee, Rockstar could have seeded the idea. As I see it, the only real downside to Rockstar is that HotCoffee was exposed too soon--the game seemed to still be selling quite well.
-se
Finally, someone with their head on straight. Mod parent up!
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
You're talking about easy access to explicit content anyway. If a kid's going to go through all the trouble of finding, downloading, and implementing an easter egg patch or a mod, why wouldn't he just surf over to the BangBus for some XXX action and skip all the hard work?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Do like everyone else. Sell it on eBay.
-Brent