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.
And as a keepsake for all of the madness... be sure to pick up your very own Hot Coffee t-shirt from ThinkGeek!
As soon as they're actually in stock, that is.
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
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
am going out to purchase this too-hot-for-Gamespot game. Then i'm going to make little kids play it. Call me The Pusher Man.
Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
So they add a new label and it's done with. It's the same game it was last week, the same game it was last month and the same game it'll be tomorrow.
GTA:SA will sell no matter the age rating, anyone who wanted it already had it or knows where to get it. It's like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted.
The "it's for the children" groups will see this as a victory. The game industry will shrug and go "oh well" and the gamers will go "STFU and get over it, it's a game".
That's how life works. Give it a month and they'll find another way to attack GTA, do very little (oh they changed a letter and added another to the rating GASP! Think of the ink it'll use!), rinse and repeat.
Maybe we should start pointing out how GTA:SA is infact a POSITIVE story about a guy trying to get out the ghetto and deal with corrupt officials with too much power.
I like muppets.
I can still kill cops and pummel innocent bystanders with a club, smashing their brains in till blood oozes all over the sidewalk. Good family fun.
How do you know it was consensual?
I think the programmers made them do it!
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.
This just in. "Real Life" has been re-rated AO by ESRB because it features the same violent and sexual content as GTA:SA.
Quote the leader: "We first noticed this when we found out there are a lot of people being invited for 'hot coffee' everywhere! This has to stop! We had no idea sex is available to everyone"
From now on, life is rated AO which means anybody under the magical age of 18 is no longer allowed to have a life.
In the short term, this whole deal seems to have backfired on Rockstar and they'll have to spend some money recalling shipped stock and then manufacturing and shipping the "clean" version. LOL, now mom and dad can safely buy GTA for junior and his 5th grade buddies! They should pick up the clean copies of 50cent's new album while they're at it.
Seriously though, Rockstar can still turn this into a New Coke style winner. Now they've essentially been given the green light to sell two versions of GTA: SA. They can sell the safe clean version at Wal-Mart and the uncut, girls gone wild, hentai version online. See now, they can just unlock the Hot Coffee minigames and add more if they want. With the AO label, they can totally cut loose and with all of the free publicity the market is already primed. It's almost as if they get to do the launch all over again. The only ones who could stop them from doing this might be Sony and Microsoft on the consoles since they have to be licensed to publish on those platforms. On the PC though, anything goes. Played right, R* may have opened the door a bit for AO versions of popular games to start appearing on consoles. As for the ESRB and modders everywhere, I think they've just been played...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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 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
Hell if I'm going to buy an AO game I better be getting what is promised on the box!
Next weeks headline : "Geek sues Rockstar for false claims of explicit sex in GTA".
Quote from the article "Steve purchased GTA:SA hoping to get a glimpse of naked women engaged in sexual acts, but instead found himself searching Rockstar's website for a 'patch'. Turns out Rockstar didn't live up to their promise of hot sex and coffee - the only way to get to that content is from a program made by some Swedish guy who doesn't even work for the game developer."
My favorite thing to do in GTAIII was sit up in the parking garage (that way the helicopters couldn't get you) and shoot people in the head with the sniper rifle. My roommate enjoyed doing that so much I eyed him suspiciously him when the DC sniper stuff started.
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.