Slashdot Mirror


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.

20 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. It's about time! by ChibiLZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:It's about time! by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?
      When you decieve somebody, their reaction when the truth comes out is greater than if you had told them the same thing upfront.

      What annoys people about this is that Rockstar decieved both the industry and the public about the content of the game. So long as this occurs, consumers can't know what they're buying. OK, so you don't mind. But the point is people should have the information up front to make their own choice.

    2. Re:It's about time! by ipfwadm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What annoys people about this is that Rockstar decieved both the industry and the public about the content of the game. So long as this occurs, consumers can't know what they're buying.

      No, Rockstar didn't deceive anyone. When you went out and bought the game, there was no possible way that you were going to get exposed to this "sex scene" without knowingly going out of your way to enable it. No possible way. Therefore, the sex scene was not part of the "content of the game", and therefore Rockstar did not deceive anyone about the content of the game.

      People's reaction to this is "greater than if you had told them the same thing upfront" because they don't understand what it's all about. They hear that there's a sex scene in the game and they pull out their pitchforks and torches. They probably think this is actually a scene you'd come across during normal gameplay, and therefore they do feel deceived.

    3. Re:It's about time! by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to use a patch to see the scene.

      It would be easier to watch porn using my web browser than it would be using this game.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    4. Re:It's about time! by colinferm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's nice to hear a little bit of common sense.

      Where this is coming from is that this country is in the same place, culturally, as we were with comic books in the 50's. At the time, all the great crime and horror comics were being published by one house (EC) and politicians - and one doctor who's name escapes me - screamed about how terrible this was for kids and how the nation was going to be full of little murderers if something wasn't done. There were congressional hearings, banner headlines, all the same as we're seeing right now for video games.

      In response, the comics industry put together the "voluntary" Comics Code Of America which most DC and Marvel books carried into the mid-90's that included various draconian "guidelines" forbidding , for instance, a comic to show anything bad happening to a police officer.

      The sad fact was that most of these books were picked up at news stands by bank clerks, butchers, and other adults who wanted something entertaining to read on their way to work and not so much by children. What the comics code did was essentially dumb down comics to the point that adults stopped reading them through out the 50's, 60's, and early 70's and basically put EC out of business since news stands wouldn't carry comics that didn't have the Comics Code stamp on their covers.

      It's too bad to see that the same thing is happening today with video games. I mean, I read that the median - median, average - age of video gamers is 27. That said, if we can have movies - and thankfully, comic books again - for adults, why not video games also? The box says 17+, so is it Rockstar's fault if parents are buying nine year old little Johnny a game that includes violence and now sex? The common sense answer, as you've said, is no.

      Anyway, just some history to go with it.

    5. Re:It's about time! by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, Rockstar disabled the content but left it there knowing that somebody was eventually going to find it - but not until after they'd been rated.

      I view it as analogous to an easter egg on a DVD movie. Except for this easter egg, you have to know what you're looking for, use external hardware to get it, and spend several hours trying to find it. But other than that, an easter egg.

      All DVDs nowadays come with a notice saying "DVD extras and commentary unrated" -- only the movie, the main content, the stuff you really paid to see, is rated. If you have to hit a dozen buttons to access the secret menu of hidden sex scenes cut from the movie, you probably know what you're in for. Nobody is going to protect you from what you worked so hard to find.

      Now, if they would only add the video game version of "extras unrated", we'd be fine. People know (or should know) what GTA is when they buy it; is there really some uproar among consumers about this? You know, that game where you go around stealing cars, beating up hookers, and killing cops -- why, it has sex in it! It was fine for little Jimmy before, but not now! You must take it off the shelves and burn it!

    6. Re:It's about time! by thesandtiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any game that is moddable can be modified in this way then, and therefore all game companies need to make it impossible for users to create and then distribute "disturbing" (whatever your definition of it is) content with the game - if we follow your logic. Which I don't, but I understand the attraction of it.

      Rockstar made a mini-game and then didn't remove all of it from their game, but they didn't make it accessable by "normal" play (or ANY play), either. It requires a modification of the software, not just some code that needs to be entered at a pause point. ANY game that is moddable can be modified into providing content that people will be up in arms to.

      Oh noes, someone made a mod that turns the monsters in Doom 3 into children, and all the weapons into sex toys! Clearly, Doom 3 needs to be made Adults Only!

      Oh noes, someone made some skins for The Sims that make them nude, and Little Jimmy has now got a house full of naked polyamorous lesbians running around! Clearly, The Sims needs to be made Adults Only!

      Oh noes, someone made skins for Morrowind that makes every NPC in the game into an extremely well-hung and otherwise well-endowed transsexual centaur! Clearly, Morrowind needs to be made Adults Only!

      Oh noes, someone made a mod of Barbie's Baking Challenge that converts the pies she bakes into Jewish Children, and the Betty Crocker Cooking Campus into Auschwitz! Clearly, Barbie's Baking Challenge needs to be made - what, it's only monstrous violence and not sex? - well, Mature then.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  2. I hate America by Mr.Dippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I hate America by Ced_Ex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.

      I can't see how sex is more evil than violence. Think of the utopia they want to have. A world with violence and no sex. Wait... wouldn't that be the fuckin apocalypse?

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    2. Re:I hate America by chphilli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the role of sex in the Christian life. Go pick up a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity (most bookstores will have it), and read it. That should clear up a lot of the misunderstanding you seem to have about the issue.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
  3. Remind me why R* should care again by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Good! by Angry+Toad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. The biggest problem might not have been the sex. by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The big problem wasn't that there was sex involved in GTA:SA. So you have ways of moving the pixels so that it looks like some guy is banging the hell out of some girl. Big deal.

    The major problem was with the timeline:

    1. Rockstar tells the MSRB, "Yeah, OK, we have some adult-themed material in this game, but that's why we figure an M-rating to be about right, because there's nothing explicit in the game."
    2. Hot Coffee comes out, showing the sex, and Rockstar says "Those @#$%ing modders! They must have inserted that porn!"
    3. Rockstar comes out and says, "Well, OK, the modders didn't insert the porn - it was already in there, but no fair drawing adverse inferences!"

    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:

    • Rockstar for lying about what content it did provide and for trying to blame the modders who exposed (pardon the expression) the hidden stuff;
    • The ESRB for having such a skewed viewpoint about the difference between "M" and "AO"
    • Above all, the parents who bought the game for Little Johnny and Janey who ignored the "M" rating and the criminal and violent subtext of the game, but were shocked, shocked! when sex reared its head.

    A plague, not on one, not on both, but on all your houses!

    --
    Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  6. Hurricane in a teacup by AdamD1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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]
  7. So, this whole thing in summary by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Anyone who previously thought that the ESRB was a good idea and defended it on the basis that if the industry self-regulated it would provide a bulwhark against censorship from outside has just been proven wrong.

      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.
    2. Anyone within the Hillary Clinton / etc "blame video games" camp who previously claimed that they just cared about protecting "the children" has just been shown to be lying.

      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.
  8. Double edged sword by Iriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  9. I don't hate America by robyannetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. Why are we even paying attention to this? by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why are we even paying attention to this? by fonetik · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Another perfect example to prove this case is that there are pieces left from a skateboard that was going to be included. The icon can still be found for it, but they pulled the skateboard as a vehicle. (Read more about it here: http://www.gtasanandreas.net/weapons/) And there is even a mod to allow you to switch the shovel with the skateboard, but you still can't ride it. They didn't remove all of it because it may have caused problems to the build. They removed just enough so that you wouldn't notice it.

      But I think all of us know that this is far more important than silly little things like the Downing St memo or Karl Rove and his crazy antics. After all, this affects children!

  11. Well once you mention the Web... by snowwrestler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.