Grandma Sues Over Hot Coffee Mod

Bond_James writes "Ars Technica is reporting that an 85-year old New York woman has filed a civil suit against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive. She alleges that the defendants 'engaged in misleading and deceptive practices in packaging and selling' the game, which she purchased for her 14-year old grandson. This will be interesting, and scary, to watch unfold in the courtrooms. Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?"

Comments

Wow, people are fools

[Altizar]

The story says she bought the game in 2004, that means it was the ps2 version. The only way to accees the mod for that version is if you have a modchip and manualy modify the files (or so every other story says). Anyway is it not her fault for buying a 14 year old a game desgined for 17+.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Hobbitgh0d42]

If her grandchild did access the part in the game couldn't Rockstar sue her under the DMCA for having a modchip and using it?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Iriel]

From what I read, it doesn't mention if this woman's grandson even accessed the Hot Coffee game anyway. If that's true, then she's just suing R* because 'it's there' and that offends her.

Not only that, but it looks like she's filing the suit on her behalf as well as that of everyone deceived into buying a game that should have been rating AO. If she's suing on behalf of a group, shouldn't this be a class action suit? If not, she better not get much out of it.

Go grandma, go and represent everyone who bought this game for kids under 17 without recognizing that the game is pretty damned offensive without the mod.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Jhon]

I may be off here, and I'm asking because I'm unfamiliar with the games rating system.

Doesn't the rating system say WHY it got the rating? Say "M 17+ for Violence"?

Perhaps the Grandmother and her grandson's parents were "OK" with the violence but had serious objections about sexual content which they had no idea was accessable on the game. Even it you had to jump through hoops to get at the content...

Had the game said something about Sexual Content, I doubt this would be an issue.

Isn't there a rating for "ADULT" content? Wouldn't this qualify? Maybe she has a case...

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Trepalium]

Sony would probably have to be the one to initiate this. However, since that mod resides in the save file, all you need is an AR Max with Maxdrive to transport to/from the PC.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

The rating DOES talk about sexual content. After all, you fuck prostitutes in cars.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Jhon]

I'll answer my own question:

Run down on the ratings system.

Yup. If the "content descriptor" didn't include the fact that there was "sexual content", grandma's got a pretty good case.

But what are her real 'damages'?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[garett_spencley]

I'm looking at the package for my PC version of SA right now.

On the back it describes the reasons for being rated Mature. Here they are.

1. Blood and Gore
2. Intense Violence.
3. Strong Language.
4. Strong Sexual Content
5. Use Of Drugs.

With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Back of my PS2 version of SA (purchased March 2005) has the same 5 items listed.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[over_exposed]

It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple. She purchased it for her 14-year-old grandson. Plain. And. Simple. It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip or any other scapegoat she can think of. The only problem here is that Grandma is contributing to the deliquency of a minor, she or her grandson broke the DMCA by installing the mod chip, and the kid's parents still let him play at Grandma's house.

Seriously...

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Jhon]

If thats the case, and her version of the game reflects what you state, then she really doesn't have much of a case.

Of course, reading the "rating guide", and being familiar with the "hot coffee mod" and what it lets you view, an "ADULT" rating might have been more appropriate here.

She may still have an argument -- a weak argument, but enough so it doesn't get tossed out of court.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[ZephyrXero]

If the kid's 14 and the game's rated M, for 17+ then she shouldn't have a case right there alone...modding or no modding. If anything, she should be tried for parental/guardian negligence.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Jhon]

It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple.

Not that plain and not that simple. It's more than an "AGE" limit -- but a guide which summarizes content as explained here

To take full advantage of the ESRB rating system, it's important to check both the rating symbol (on the front of the game box) and the content descriptors (on the back of the game box).

Its now my understand that the game DOES list "STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT". But perhaps the game should have received an "ADULT" rating...

From what I can see, Grandma's got enough to go to court if she wants without the case getting tossed out.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Iriel]

I completely agree, but I have a more lax attitude towards sex whereas most of America is pretty uptight about the subject. The sad truth of the matter is that America sees a big different between 'Strong Sexual Content' and 'Explicit Sexual Content'

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Nos.]

Here's a post I made on K5 yesterday:

So I had a look at ESRB's site. GTA: San Adreas was previously (I believe) rated M. By ESRB standards, that means that they suggest this content it fine for anyone 17 years or older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.. From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on. To me, this fits within sexual content. Of course, up here in Canada, I've seen worse things on TV during prime time, though we do tend to be a little more liberal with sex and language on TV then our neighbours to the south.

Now, they've bumped up the rating to AO. Which is okay for people 18 and over. I guess in those 12 months we're able to prepare ourselves to see what wouldn't even be considered soft porn. ESRB describes AO as ...may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity. So, a game centering on criminal activites that involve assinations, killing police, mugging people, hookers, etc. with lots of violence, a complete disregard for what most of us consider moral behvior, is much worse for our kids when it involves dry humping.

As other posters have mentioned, this is probably a marketing ploy by Rockstar. If this investigation happens, and they manage to prove that management knew about it, slap a fine on them and move on. Lets face it, if your kids are up watching any kind of cable TV when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. If they surf the net when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. Accoring to various sources, most kids are losing their virginty by 16. So, if you're worried that this game was rated 17+, realize that your child has probably done more sexually than this game shows, well before they're at an age where the ESRB thinks they're mature enough to see it.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

The content is already part of the game.

It does not require a 'modded save game', or a chipped console. It only requires an AR Max(or other cheat device) and the proper codes to unlock it.

(I won't post a link to said codes, for fear that I'll be lynched by the holier-than-thou morality police for possibly contributing to the delinquency of minors who really shouldn't have the game to use the codes on in the first place. Ask properly, and Google shall provide. ;) )

Also, Grandma has a very unstable base for her case, if any at all, simply because it clearly states on the ESRB warning that the game is for players 17 years and older, nevermind the blatantly-spelled-out descriptions of WHY it was rated as such. The real question here is, why did she buy it for her 14-year-old grandson?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[iCEBaLM]

Right, because 1 year (M=17, AO=18) makes so much difference.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Pxtl]

Actually, iirc, the AR Max is actually modding the savegame when you do the Hot Coffee ps2 hack.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont need a mod-chip to access these features, only a gameshark or action replay. Gamespot.com has an article up about it where they actually went and tried it to find out.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence."

That's simple to explain: Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence. Parents think the way to prevent this is to pretend sex doesn't exist.

I don't think it's shocking at all. Then again, at my 10 year high school reunion, I'm going to reunite with a number of people that have 12 year old kids.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[vinohradska]

Ok, who is behind this "Grandmother"? This stinks of politics.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[stinerman]

Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[MattW]

Not only that, but it looks like she's filing the suit on her behalf as well as that of everyone deceived into buying a game that should have been rating AO. If she's suing on behalf of a group, shouldn't this be a class action suit? If not, she better not get much out of it.

It probably intends to become a class action suit. She files as an individual, her lawyer gets press and gets 9 more claimants, then requests the court to certify the "victims" as a class; then other law firms jump on the bandwagon in a mad scramble to recruit grandmothers everywhere who bought M17+ games for their young relatives, thinking it was just plain honest fun like cop-killing and never expected something like sex; finally, a lead plaintiff is selected and they're off to the races.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[over_exposed]

I hope they go to court - I want to read about the lawyers for Rockstar giggling while asking this woman questions.

"Ma'am, did you purchase this game for your grandson?"

"Ma'am, did the game packaging have an ESRB rating of M on it and did the back of the packaging say why it's rated M?"

"Ma'am, did you even look at the box when you purchased it for your 14-year-old grandson?"

Re:Wow, people are fools

[vinohradska]

Or perhaps the lawyer, Laurence D. Paskowitz, is looking to make a name for himself, or $$$, or both.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

No, because the instructions for the codes explitly state not to save with the codes on, 'cause it will corrupt the data and make the saved game(s) un-usable.

This means that it will "modify" a saved game, but only if you re-save the game after starting it, 'cause the new save file will include the changes to the in-memory code for Hot Coffee, which is why the save will be corrupted.

Also, AR Max only alters the memory addresses of the currently-running program code--i.e. the game as it exists in the system's memory while you're playing.

All the codes do is unlock the part of the program that allows access to the Hot Coffee mini-game(s). That's also why you have to use a button combination to free C.J. from the "invisible box" he's stuck in after you done one of the Hot Coffee games, 'cause the game doesn't actually have a mechanism for returning to the main game. That's probably why the save game(s) will be corrupted with the codes on.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.

She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as).

IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable.

The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible.

As an analogy, what about this scenario:
1) A video rental store listing in the Yellow Pages says they have rated R movies, but no porn
2) Video store has a softcore porn section, but it is in an enclosed area and minors are not allowed to enter said area
3) A parent brings their child into the store; the child then sneaks into the adult section and is exposed to softcore porn.

Is the parent liable for allowing the child into the videostore? Or liable for not preventing the child from entering the porn section?

Is the child liable for sneaking into the pron section?

Is the store liable for not catching the child in the act of sneaking into the porn section? Or liable for advertising that they have no porn?

Are the Yellow Pages liable for falsely representing the contents of the store? Is the video store liable for giving the Yellow Pages false information?

The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification.
Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[ceejayoz]

Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence.

Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

actually you are incorrect.

most americans are not uptight about it.

a very small, extremely vocal minority is uptight about it.

they also know how to get press coverage.

the average american could give a shit about this type of stuff

Re:Wow, people are fools

[milkman_matt]

Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.


What's unfortunate is Rockstar is REMOVING THE CONTENT, -and- changing the rating to AO... where's the sense in this? If it's being told they need an AO rating because ofo this content, I say they unlock that shit and rerelease the game as AO. If they're removing said content, they should be left with their M rating, in either case it's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in this case, say if she bought her 17y/o a copy of the game then realized it had sexual content then maybe there'd be room for her to argue, because as you stated, that one year makes a difference in legal terms, but he was 14!! and it SAYS all of the reasons why it's rated as such ON THE BOX, that's what I don't get... "Strong Sexual Content" ...wait there's sex in this game!? They show people having sex!? Why didnt' they say so!? I'm offended!

Re:Wow, people are fools

[milkman_matt]

From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on.

This reminds me of something I forgot to mention when I posted earlier.. So they're REMOVING this content which caused the community to demand an AO rating, THEN they're giving it an AO rating, and in the description on the back, they've added 'NUDITY' to their list of reasons for the rating... Well, I hope this means that they're not really removing the content, but actually ENABLING it.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Dark_Lord_Prime]

"The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.

She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as)."

Maybe so, but you're assuming that's what she did. However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content." (nevermind the violence, blood, gore and drug use) If so, she has no valid complaint, since that is exactly what she is now upset about. She's also now indicating that she -doesn't- judge the boy to be mature enough to handle said content.

"IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable. The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible."

Again, that's true, -assuming- that the programmers weren't told, late in the game(so-to-speak) to remove the Hot Coffee minigame, because management decided that it was just too much. If that's what happened, and the programmers (or director, or whomever) decided to ignore that and simply put a lock-out on that part of the program, then it's really -their- screw-up, and they should be disciplined.

However, regardless, the ESRB assigns their ratings according to the content that is intended to be accessible to the end user, not what may or may not be locked away, with or without the knowledge of the people in charge.

If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.

To your analogy: Yellow Pages is not responsible, as they can only print what their advertisers provide them to print. This would be like Wal*Mart being responsible for Hot Coffee being included in the software. They had nothing to do with programming the game, coming up with the mod OR cheat-device codes, or anything else. They (hopefully) conscientiously abided by the ESRB rating, which they in no way broke, since it was a "little old lady" purchasing a game rated "17+".

The video store could be faulted for possible false-advertising, but they'd have a decent argument in that the general impression is that "porn" means "explicit, hardcore sex acts." AFAIK, "softcore" is the fluff that, again, is seen on Showtime and Cinemax late at night, and that usually has an 'R' rating because of language and sexual content.

"the child then sneaks into the adult section"

Keyword here being "sneaks". The video store should be keeping watch on their 'adult' room, which they (usually) do via CC monitors. However, it is the parents' responsibility to watch and control their underage child, not the store's, just as with everything else.

"The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification. Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content."

You are absolutely correct. She should be told to shove it. The package is clearly marked as to the content. Either she didn't read it, or she didn't understand it. Per

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Reapy]

I don't get it. I never will. It has nothing to do with rockstar and the game and everything to do with blowing an issue out of proportion and scapegoating rockstar.

Will no one get it straight in their stupid heads that this is only accessable by moding the game? There is no button sequence to press to unlock it, there are no in game mechanics to access it. You have to go in and modify the data in the game to access it.

This is the equivalent of downloading and playing modified level for half life that has porn on the wall.

The argument that the content was on the disk is rediculous. Who cares if it was on the disk? If you wanted to find it by looking at the disk contents, the worst you probably find would be a streched out uv map of a nude skin.

I just don't understand why millions of dollars need to be spent to discover that it's easier to cut content by removing access to it then destroying all the assets?

Rockstar provided no way shape or form for a game user to access this content. The only way to do such is to modify the game. MODIFY THE GAME!! Modifying the code is the same as adding in the nudity. It is the same as taking parts of various assets and construcing "lewd" pictures with it.

God damn, I hate people sometimes. I hate them so much. And this isn't even launching into the whole hypocritical outlook on violence vs sex in our rating schemes.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final." .. and far less frequent than teen pregnancy.

Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

I honestly don't understand why this concept is so alien to everybody here. Is it because you all think I'm writing that to say they're right? Well, I can put that fear to rest: No, I'm not saying they're right. I'm merely explaining why somebody would prioritize sexual conduct on TV over violence. I'm sorry that these people are living in a world of perception instead of a world of fact, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Frankly, though, I think you all should be listening to what I'm saying, here. (in case it's a little fuzzy, I've brought this up before and it was mindlessly shot down there, too.) You guys want want these people to chill before resorting to extremism, right? How are you going to do that if you're going to call them 'fools' instead of trying to understand where they're coming from?

Honestly, guys. I shouldn't have to put up my dukes every time I say something that's not quite in line with public opinion.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content."

Sure, but the ESRB details on the package should list "Nudity" or "Partial nudity" separately -- especially in this case, the nudity was prolonged. If Rockstar/Take2 had disclosed the Hot Coffee segment to th ESRB, they probably would have included "Nudity."

If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.

Please see notes above, prolonged nudity is not covered by "Strong Sexual Content." http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp

Also, whether or not Rockstar/Take2 was aware of the content being included does not affect their responsibility to disclose the content. Since they distributed the game, they are responsible for all of its contents.

And regardless of what employee at Rockstar/Take2 is responsible for the content being there, the company will be held liable, not the individual, should the Court decide in Granny's favor.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[stinerman]

Good point. I'm reminded of a Bill Hicks routine about interactive porn. I don't recall the specifics off hand, but he basically said that if you're going to be doing porno, you shouldn't be coy about it. If GTA:SA is going to get an AO rating, they should go wild on the stuff they're going to put in the re-release. Enable every last bit of "strong sexual content" possible.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[okayplayer]

I would say "Finally!" if this was the first post I've seen with the right idea but (thankfully) its not. It is however the first post I've seen that makes the arugment completly. Who cares if the code was on the disc, as the game was sold, there was no way for the player to access those functions.

Whether the changes made to "unlock" the mini-game was 1 bit or a whole script swap, ANY modification of the game code, whether in the engine, the scripts, or even in a saved game file constitutes a violation of the EULA and creates a game that is no longer explicitly Rockstars.

That being said, I'd like to mod up Half Life to show me some humping... Anybody want to help out?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Leiterfluid]

Actually, you can do it with the ARMAX by manually inputting a series of codes. No file transfer is necessary.

I own the PS2 version, own an ARMax, tried it, with success.

Grandma's a fool for buying a game called "Grand Theft Auto" for her grandkids.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Caiwyn]

Anyway is it not her fault for buying a 14 year old a game desgined for 17+.

That's right! Parents should just trust the ESRB rating, with no thought of their child's individuality or maturity level, because all kids are exactly the same.

Hey, maybe we can go right ahead and make it illegal to sell M-rated games to minors, since obviously no one under 17 can handle it.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Psmylie]

Considering the complete lack of genitalia in the hidden scenes, and the fact that CJ is completely clothed the whole time, it's debatable whether it even contains "graphic sexual content and nudity". As far as that goes, it may not even deserve an AO rating (at least for the sexual situations). If this were the movie equivelent, it would be an "R" rating.

Not that it matters, really, since I personally think the "AO" was punitive, and intended to show that the ESRB was taking this seriously

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Psmylie]

Yeah, according to the article, she bought the game for her grandson, gave it to him, and then found out it was rated M and had it taken awy from him. Since she obviously didn't look at the packaging in order to realise that it was rated M, then she wouldn't have looked at the packaging to see that it was rated AO. The only thing I can say is that if it had been rated AO, she wouldn't have been able to buy it at her local Wal-Mart.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Caiwyn]

"Ma'am, did you purchase this game for your grandson?"

"Yes, I did."

"Ma'am, did the game packaging have an ESRB rating of M on it and did the back of the packaging say why it's rated M?"

"Yes, it did. My grandson is mature beyond his years, however, and I didn't think there was any content on the disc that was inappropriate for him."

"Ma'am, did you even look at the box when you purchased it for your 14-year-old grandson?"

"Certainly. And nowhere on the box does it state that the content on the disc includes simulated sex."

You had better believe this woman has a case. It won't go to court, but that's only because Rockstar will most likely offer her a settlement.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[bobstevens_took_my_n]

Last I heard it was verified that the sex minigame could be unlocked in the PS2 version using an Action Replay. No need to chip and modify files... or do you still believe the lie that this was completely a 3rd party modification?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Aeiri]

Considering the complete lack of genitalia in the hidden scenes, and the fact that CJ is completely clothed the whole time

I've seen more sex in an episode of the Shield than in this "sex scandal", and that's on TV. Funny how they are attacking a game you have to purchase, as opposed to a show you can flip through and accidentally see on TV.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Aeiri]

Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Aeiri]

"Certainly. And nowhere on the box does it state that the content on the disc includes simulated sex."

Then with the current some stores carrying the AO version, she would still have a case. It would change "Strong Sexual Content" to "Explicit Sexual Content" and still, nowhere on the box does it state that the content on the disc includes simulated sex.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Aeiri]

Also, Grandma has a very unstable base for her case, if any at all, simply because it clearly states on the ESRB warning that the game is for players 17 years and older, nevermind the blatantly-spelled-out descriptions of WHY it was rated as such. The real question here is, why did she buy it for her 14-year-old grandson?

Another thing is, unless he's REALLY sheltered (and I meant REALLY REALLY sheltered), a bit of polygonal nudity isn't going to be a big surprise to any 14 year old. I'm sure he's watched plenty of porn already for it not to be a surprise to him, and that's more than just "sexually explicit". Of course, the courts probably don't accept this as real evidence...

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Intron]

Her full name is Grandma Theft Auto. Its just a ploy to get more publicity.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[NanoGator]

"If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it."

Alternatively, in my years in high school, there was never any death. There were PLENTY of pregancies, though.

Maybe we come from different places. I doubt that's the diff, though. Nearly every teenager pursues sex. Frankly, I think you need to take a good hard look at why you chose the phrase "less chance of having sex". That implies that your lack of sex (apologies, not intending to sound insulting. ) wasn't the result of a lack of trying or at least really really wanting. Would I be correct in assuming your parents didn't really care much for protecting you from 'sexual content'?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Starsmore]

Sure, but the ESRB details on the package should list "Nudity" or "Partial nudity" separately -- especially in this case, the nudity was prolonged. If Rockstar/Take2 had disclosed the Hot Coffee segment to th ESRB, they probably would have included "Nudity."

Except the "Hot Coffee" mod, which is not part of the normal game, that which the consumer will see through normal means (and by which the ESRB rates) doesn't have nudity.
So that kills that argument because 1) Hot Coffee isn't part of the normal game and 2) There's no nudity.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[hunterx11]

Is shielding teens from sexual content in the media going to help at all? The repressive sort of atmosphere under which sex is considered worse than violence is going to lead to a lot more teen pregnancy than any video game. Why doesn't western Europe have a bigger teen pregnancy problem than the U.S. when they're open about sex?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[hunterx11]

I've seen more sex in an episode of CSI: Miami and that was primetime network television rated TV14.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[dubious9]

It does when retailers such as Walmart don't carry AO games.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[hords]

So maybe someone would have something if their kid was 17 and bought the PC version of the game and saw the hot coffee game. This is just plain nuts. I can't believe how crazy people are going over this with all the other shit in the game already. I'd rather have my kid see someone having sex (unless raped) then someone brutally murdering other people for fun.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

Sorry, I didn't realize that the nudity in Hot Coffee was an additional mod. But still, why is Nudity now included on the ESRB label detail, while before it wasn't? Seems to me that there MUST be some nudity in the game (which I haven't played), which means that there was not full disclosure on the label prior to the revision. Not that I think nudity is something a 14-year-old can't handle, but disclosure is the key.

And one of my points is that the publisher should be responsible for all content included on the disc(s) they release, whether or not it is included in the "regular" version of the game. Any game publisher knows that all content shipped is eventually going to be viewable.

In my mind, this stinks of a publicity stunt gone bad.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Starsmore]

Any nudity in the game is an actual, full-blown user mod. As in, someone had to go in and add a nude skin to the game files.

Which puts it in the realm of after-market modification, and Rockstar isn't any more responsible than EA is for people making nude skins for The Sims or (as I found out the other day) people hacking World of Warcraft to get naked Night Elves.

Why should the publisher be responsible for unused content? That's like holding a filmmaker responsible for stuff that's on the cutting room floor. Yeah, it'll get out to the public eventually, in the form of blooper reels, deleted scenes on DVD, or who knows what, but it's content that was not included in the normal experience; sitting in a movie theater watching the regular cut, sitting on your couch playing an unmodified version of a game.

Stuff like this will ruin the world of modification, which brought us stuff like Counterstrike and gobs of other great content. Game makers will lock their content down like it was Fort Knox, so you have to sign your soul and your first born away before you can make any sort of modification. Most people won't like that, so any sort of replayability will go out the window. For computer games, whether or not you can mod a game is the deciding point for purchase for alot of people. What's the point of dropping $50-$60 on a game if you can play through it once?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Rs_Conqueror]

woah, flashbacks to roe vs wade!

Re:Wow, people are fools

[garett_spencley]

I lost my virginity at 12 in a vacant house that was still being built with a girl that I had known for 3 hours. At age 16 I got my girlfriend (now wife) pregnant.

So I have something to say about this.

For starters, I understand where parents who are afraid of their children getting pregnant or impregnanting a girlfriend are comming from. As someone who has been down that road I am scared to death for the same thing happening to my daughters.

However, I put a large part of the blame on society shielding children from sex. The reason I got my girlfriend pregnant was because we didn't use condoms. The reason we didn't use condoms was because we didn't have any.

What were my options ? I could have gone out of my way to go to a teen health center where I could have gotten them for free (this was a 2 hour round trip bus ride .. not likely for lazy teenagers to pursue). I could have asked my parents to buy them for me which would have caused all kinds of problems. I could have stolen them. I could have bought them if I wasn't too embarrassed to do so or if I had the money ($12 for a pack of condoms is a lot for a teenager without a job). Or I could abstained from having sex all together.

Perhaps if society were a little less uptight about sex then my school could have been giving out free condoms in the nurses office. My mother would have offered to supply them for me. I could have been more comfortable asking my mother to supply them to me etc.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[tepp]

Seems to me that there MUST be some nudity in the game (which I haven't played),

Not that I've seen. I've been playing for over a month, and while my gangsta walks around wearing pink heart boxers, and nothing but a smile and an afro.... his hoo-ha is still covered.

And while women walk around wearing bikinis and mini-skirts... their hoo-has are covered as well.

I've not seen anything that qualifies as nudity, just some bad fashion sense.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[tepp]

Hey, maybe we can go right ahead and make it illegal to sell M-rated games to minors, since obviously no one under 17 can handle it.

Actually, you can't buy it in most stores without being carded. I got carded at EBgames when I bought it, and I'm 28 and married, and had a wedding ring visible, and a few grey hairs...

Hubby gets carded when buying other M games, and he's got a beard and a pot belly.

I'm not complaining, but if you try to buy an M rated game at Best Buy or any of the niche game stops, you get carded. Not so sure about wal-mart, but I bet the card too.

That is why the grandma had to buy it for the 14 year old. The 14 year old couldn't go in and buy it for himself.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Follier]

Awareness of and exposure to sex is the best cure for teen pregancy there is. I went to highschool up north in a suburb of chicago, where controls on sexual material were VERY lax. You could get even condoms from the nurses office (which, by the way, kills the mood). In my four years there, there was only one pregnancy... which was quite the scandal. Then I moved to the uptight bible belt, where even mentioning sex earns you the title of "deviant devil worshipper". This is the important part---> the High School had to have a DAY CARE added on to it!!! (and this town is a LOT more wealthy and influential than my old neighborhood, god knows, so its not an economic thing.. its a repression/curiosity/forced-self-discovery thing) ... so yes I think people who are upset about their kids accidently seeing sexual material either are VERY stupid or they want grandchildren NOW.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Provocateur]

The answer is obvious, they forgot to put item 6:

6. Did I mention Strong Sexual Content???

Re:Wow, people are fools

[le_defaut_tragique]

If only the human body didn't reach reproductive age until our twenties, sex wouldn't be a problem. Teenagers are interested in sex because we are *supposed to be* in order to propogate the species. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that the average human lifespan wasn't much above thirty- about long enough to get to reproductive age and start reproducing and raising children.

Teen pregnancy is not at all a new phenomenon- it's the most natural thing in the world.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Blkdeath]

Please see notes above, prolonged nudity is not covered by "Strong Sexual Content."

A "little old lady" raised in a time of chastity boards, chaperones, 7PM curfiews, little girls who "went away" for 9-10 months and came back with a little brother or sister would (should) read "SEX" and immediately understand there to be content in the game related to, if not including intercourse. The semantics of what ESRB rating covers 5 versus 37.2 seconds of nudity are outside the scope of rationale. The fact remains that this lady purchased mature content for an imature grandchild and is now pursuing legal action as a result.

As to the argument that she believed her 14 year old grandchild is/was as mature as a 17 year old, that's absurd and her lawyers would be best to prevent that from ever airing in a court of law. By extension her 16 year old grandchild is mature enough to purchase alcohol and tobacco products. I'm sorry, but "He's mature for 14" isn't a legally valid argument for indulging in otherwise adult restricted activities. The argument became further irrelevant when she filed suit alleging that said grandchild was not, in fact, mature enough to handle "17+" content.

Furthermore, it could be argued that 17+ content is intended for 17 year olds who are as mature as 20 year olds.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Monkelectric]

Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

And in europe where the people aren't prudes are things any better?

I remember being a teenager. I had incredible desires and no outlet for them, TV, movies, books, art, everything screaming sex at you. I'm almost 30 and still have trouble with it sometimes (and don't start with the "well if you got some..." I have had sex more times with more women then most people).

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Blkdeath]

That's right! Parents should just trust the ESRB rating, with no thought of their child's individuality or maturity level, because all kids are exactly the same.

It's diffuclt to see the sarcasm in your post considering the context. This lady chose, as in your beliefs, to ignore the ESRB rating, possibly (presumably) because she believed her grandchild to be "different". In the end, she found herself acknowledging and, in fact, trusting the ESRB rating and removing the game from the child.

What point were you making again?!?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you're right - a moment's Googling reveals that the honorable officer of the court filing this suit has a web page:
www.classactionsonline.com

Which lists:

Email: info@ClassActionsOnline.com

        Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
        Paskowitz & Associates
        60 East 42nd Street
        46th Floor
        New York, NY 10165
        (212) 685-0969 (tel.)
        (212) 685-2306 (fax)
        (718) 344-6470 (cell)
        (800) 705-9529 (toll free)

        Classattorney@aol.com

Don't harrass him, he just might sue you. OTOH the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances might be held to apply to officers of the court - or not. IANAL - use at your own risk.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's true, then she's just suing R* because 'it's there' and that offends her.

you must be kidding, right?

shes suing rockstar FOR THE DOUGH!!!

btw, she probably doesnt even KNOWS what shes suing and what for, a lawyer just convinced her that she can make some money suing some videogame company and signing some papers!!

god, american law system is becoming so fkd up. |-P

Re:Wow, people are fools

[pboulang]

Rather the child had a sophisticated device / sledgehammer with which to break through a cement wall behind which is probably the WORST porn ever. It is so bad that if you had purchased it with the intent of seeing porn, you would want to sue for mental anguish.

BTW, your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs initial letters spell out the word "ShIT".. I am extremely offended by that. It's quite obvious that you as a corporation deliberately put that content into your post. Of course, instead of giggling and getting on with my life, my grandmother has to sue your ass to maintain her dignity.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Mycroft_VIII]

Perhaps the content they're removing is the CLOTHES in the 'hot coffe' portions. I know if I was them that's what I'd be tempted to do :)

Mycroft

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Murasaki Skies]

You could get even condoms from the nurses office (which, by the way, kills the mood).

But when you use the condoms in the nurse's office, with the nurse, does that kill the mood? *covers eyes to avoid reading that the nurse was fat, hairy, covered in sentient boils, and a tranny*

Re:Wow, people are fools

[tricorn]

I thought they were changing the rating of the CURRENT version to AO, sending out stickers to retailers who want to continue selling stock-in-hand, and releasing the modified M-rated version.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Frodo Crockett]

The only problem here is that Grandma is contributing to the deliquency of a minor

Only if she's in that one fucked-up state where the ESRB ratings are backed by law. AFAIK, New York is not that state. ;) Would be funny to see her get slapped with some jail time, though.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Warfire]

I have the UK edition of the XBox version of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I bought it on the day of it's UK release, 10th June 2005.

This game carries an "18" certificate, see here for confirmation http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/Class ifiedWorks/AB362EDBC3607DE980256F25001B824D?OpenDo cument, which was awarded by the same body that certifies any DVD, video, cinema film or game and under UK law (The Video Recordings Act 1984, ammended in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) this certificate is legally enforcable.

This means it is illegal for a shop of any kind to sell or rent an "18" certificate title, like GTA:SA, to a person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18.

I think the fault in the case of Grandma v. Rockstar/Take 2 is the US system for regulating video game sales. I work as a games tester, sadly I started after GTA:SA was tested over here as it would have been one of the guys in my team who would have the job of looking for the hot coffee style content, and I had to sign all sorts of paper work to say that I would work on material that was not yet rated, and that would be "18" or "R18" certified (R18 is basically porn, not to be sold out side of licenced adult shops). If the industry are this paranoid about the unfinished games being too extreme, they must be very careful about the finished titles.

It is really common for games to have content in them that isn't used.. for example, Half Life 1 I know had hundreds of textures that were never used, including the debug textures with "I AM NOT A TEXTURE!" scrawled all over them. There is no point in spending weeks trawling through your game files removing content you may or may not need. I don't blame Rockstar/Take 2 one bit for this, but I place the blame squarely with the parents, and in this case grandparents, of those kids who have been exposed to material not suitable for them.

One day, when I'm ready to have kids, I will make sure that I play they games first, before they see them. Maybe I won't complete them, but if I'm playing a game that's a bit suspect for kids anyway, like GTA:SA, I will make sure I'm there, watching them when they play it. If it turns out to be Kirby Land, I'll let them play it alone.

I personally don't think a 14 year old kid should be on the internet on their own anyway so they shouldn't have found the hot coffee mod, or at least not have the opportunity of using it without their parents knowledge.

-
Peter

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Follier]

"covers eyes to avoid reading that the nurse was fat, hairy, covered in sentient boils, and a tranny"

No trust me, it's worse if the nurse is smokin hot... & then she gives you that *look*. Its not as bad as the look you get from the drug-store clerk who happens to be your girlfriend's brother, but it ranks right up there.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[HTH NE1]

If she bought an M-rated game in 2004 for her then 14-year-old grandson, why isn't an AO-rated game for her now 15-year-old grandson in 2005 just as appropriate? So the game grows with the player.

I do have a 57% chance that the grandson is now 15, unless he was actually 57 (born on February 29th, 1948), but that would be silly.

She sought unspecified damages on behalf of herself and all consumers nationwide, saying the company should give up its profits from the game for what amounted to false advertising, consumer deception and unfair business practices.

It should be up to each purchaser to decide whether they felt deceived. She does not speak for me. Rockstar can keep the profit for the copy I bought. I'd feel the same even if I didn't know about Hot Coffee before my purchase.

What's next, suing McDonalds for using recycled Playboys in the manufacture of their Happy Meal boxes?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[follower_of_christ]

The ESRB pulled the 17+ rating and replaced it with Adult Only (AO) which implies Porn which Wal-mart doesn't sell. Grandma thought she could trust Wal-mart to carry respectful products. Wal-mart (might have) thought they were carrying respectful products.

Shame on Grandma for buying her 14 year old a 17+ game. Shame on Rockstar for pushing a game with porn content to a lower rating. Shame on the parents for not watching what grandma buys for her grandchild.

As a parent myself, if a game with Porn is allowed to be rated 17+, I'll probably brush with a broad stroke and not allow any 17+ games in my home because I don't want to do the research on each game my kid brings home. That'll continue to the extent that if anyone is considering bringing such content into my home, they'll no longer be welcome (or the game'll be trashed and my child's gaming privelages will be removed). That even goes for if my little johnny is playing with jimmy down the street and I hear jimmy has 17+ rated games in his home, johnny won't be allowed to go to jimmy's house.

Just because Grandma did the wrong thing in buying a mature game for a 14 year old doesn't mean Rockstar is blameless. They're attempting to distrubute media that contains porn under a deficient rating.

From the posted article above, "The other option is, of course, to allow the government to mandate the ratings. Unsurprisingly, the gaming industry would rather do it themselves.". I agree.

It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip
I guess I see it as, all of the above are at fault, including Grandma. Little johnny shouldn't ever be exposed to porn.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[radish]

There isn't even any nudity on the disc. If you just apply the regular patch to unlock the minigame, they are fully dressed. You have to add your own skin...

Re:Wow, people are fools

[EvilNTUser]

"As a parent myself, if a game with Porn is allowed to be rated 17+, I'll probably brush with a broad stroke and not allow any 17+ games in my home because I don't want to do the research on each game my kid brings home."

Perhaps, as a parent yourself, you should be buying your teenagers condoms instead of trying to protect them from titties.

And if your children aren't teenagers, why aren't you more concerned about the violence?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[denmarkw00t]

I have a friend who works for EB Games and yes, they are placing AO stickers on the copies they currently have and they just keep those copies behind the counter. I haven't heard anything about them getting M-rated versions, though I'm sure they will be soon enough.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[timster]

You know, I've got to speak to this.

I know this one girl who is 18 years old. Kind-hearted soul, polite as anybody. Once I saw her playing GTA: Vice City.

Disturbing as all heck. She kept doing the same thing over and over, for no reason. She knew a code that causes a multitude of women to show up and mindlessly follow you around. She'd enter the code and once the women showed up, she'd carefully shoot them in the head one by one. I have no idea why she was playing like that, but I think it was far worse than this non-nudity "porn" that everyone is going on about.

Parents like yourself should make no mistake as to what a 17+ game means. These games are more interactive than ever before, and they will allow your children to do and see incredibly inappropriate things. And where an R movie might include 90 minutes of violence, a video game allows this violence to be experienced over and over again, on demand.

I'm 24 and single, and I buy and play GTA games when I feel like it, and enjoy myself immensely. But as a parent considering the issue of video games, I think you should be more worried about the kinds of conduct they allow your children to engage in. I believe that your reaction to this mod suggests you haven't taken that issue seriously enough. If "hot coffee" bothers you so much, then the REST of the game should bother you even more.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[follower_of_christ]

I hope that I'm a good enough parent that my children will abstain from sex until they get married. Condoms won't be necessary. The argument that, "There going to do it anyway" merely dooms them to. I'm not protecting them from titties; rather, I'm protecting them from the idealogy that the consequences of sex is merely physical. I definately won't be buying them or allowing them to bring a game like GTA home. I won't be a part of spreading the unhealthy idealogies of the game. Please point to my part of my post where I said I wasn't concerned about the violence? Actually, the degridation of institution of marriage as being the sole insitution where sex is allowable is a major cause for domestic abuse and failed marriages. So, by fighting to protect my kids from "titties", I am fighting the spread of violence.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

Why should the publisher be responsible for unused content? That's like holding a filmmaker responsible for stuff that's on the cutting room floor.

It would only be like this if the cut frames were included with the distro of the movie.

I'm not saying that any possible mods need to be disclosed at publication. I'm saying that, if you publish content, regardless of whether or not it is accessible in the "normal" game, you should be required to disclose that content.

The point here is that Rockstar/TakeTwo published material some people consider not suitable for a minor. Whether or not that material is "easily" accessible or not, it was accessible, and should have been disclosed.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

As to the argument that she believed her 14 year old grandchild is/was as mature as a 17 year old, that's absurd and her lawyers would be best to prevent that from ever airing in a court of law.

Actually, this is not absurd. As acting guardian of the child, it was her right and responsiblity to make those decisions. That is the point of the ESRB system, to allow guardians to make informed decisions about the content they allow their wards to see.

The ESRB rating of M does not mean "This material is only appropriate for persons age 17 and older."

Instead, it means: This material contains content that most people would not find appropriate for persons under age 17.

The fact remains that this lady purchased mature content for an imature grandchild and is now pursuing legal action as a result.

This lady is not pursuing legal action because she purchased mature content -- she is pursuing legal action because she was not given full disclosure of the content of the game as originally labeled, and has content significantly more "mature" than was disclosed on the label.

It can be argued that she deemed M material appropriate for her grandchild, as is her right. Her complaint is that the game contained material too graphic for an M rating, which was not disclosed by Rockstar/Take2.

The four questions the court needs to determine are:
1) Did inclusion of the material in the media, whether easily accessible or not, constitute publication of that material?
2) If so, did Rockstar/Take2 fail to disclose the content to the ESRB and the public, willfully or not?
3) If so, was the undisclosed material sufficiently more "adult" to make it possibly inappropriate for persons for whom the "normal" content of the game was appropriate?
4) Can she demonstrate injury to herself, or her ward, through the actions of Rockstar/Take2?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

I've not seen anything that qualifies as nudity, just some bad fashion sense. Then I'm going to sue Rockstar/Take2 and the ESRB for false advertising. I just last night bought a copy of the game so I could see some nudity, which the new ESRB label clearly states is included.

At the very least, I want my money back, so I can pay for 15 days of unlimited access to my pr0n webring.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

As an addendum to my earlier reply, I want to mention that I totally agree with you that the publisher should not be liable for aftermarket content mods.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Blkdeath]

This lady is not pursuing legal action because she purchased mature content -- she is pursuing legal action because she was not given full disclosure of the content of the game as originally labeled, and has content significantly more "mature" than was disclosed on the label.

So you're telling me that this grandmother is fully aware of the semantics of the ESRB ratings - apparently moreso than you or I - and determined that the level of sexual content in the game was within the adviseable limits for consumption by a 14 year old? It sounds to me as if a lawyer filled her in to the details of the rating system after the fact, and moreover she ignored the existing ratings on the box in the first place.

If the game is listed as being suitable for a 17 year old, what difference does it make if it's instead listed as being suitable for an 18 year old? Neither one of them equals a 14 year old. Period. If she believes her grandchild is mature enough to handle 17 year old content she is taking a considered risk in the first place. As it turns out, her grandchild is mischevous and apparently unlocked 'hidden' content in order to make the game even more graphic.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

If the game is listed as being suitable for a 17 year old, what difference does it make if it's instead listed as being suitable for an 18 year old? Neither one of them equals a 14 year old. Period. It doesn't matter how mature the kid is, or if he's 10, 14, or 17 years old. What matters is what level of maturity SHE deems the child to be, and therefore to determine what level of material is appropriate for her ward. We must assume that she was making an educated decision here, since that is the basis of her claim, and that therefore she thought her child was mature enough to handle content the ESRB rates as M.

While your standards may be that NO 14-year-old is mature enough for M-rated games, her standards may be different, and she is within her rights to apply them to her ward.

All that matters here is whether or not the game was published with material different from what was discosed, that was misleading enough to warrant a different ESRB rating.

I agree with you, it is a ridiculous lawsuit. However, she does have a legal standpoint.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Blkdeath]

While your standards may be that NO 14-year-old is mature enough for M-rated games, her standards may be different, and she is within her rights to apply them to her ward.

They're not my standards, they're well precedented standards established in law. Does she deem her grandchild mature enough to handle cigarettes? Alcohol? Firearms? There are laws in place to ensure mature content does not get into the hands of minors who are deemed, in general, to be too immature to handle same and this lady circumvented these laws by purchasing something her grandchild would not have been able to purchase on his own (for very good reason).

Also see above for all arguments relating to the fact that the game is titled after a felony offence and, I believe, depicts assault-class firearms and gruesome violence on the cover.

While she may have a case if her grandchild were 17 years of age, she is way out of her depth because the basis of her suit demonstrates negligence.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Red Flayer]

There are laws in place to ensure mature content does not get into the hands of minors who are deemed, in general, to be too immature to handle same and this lady circumvented these laws by purchasing something her grandchild would not have been able to purchase on his own (for very good reason). Actually, those laws are in place to ensure that said content does not get into the hands of minors without approval of their guardian. She did not circumvent any laws. She exercised her right, as a guardian, to decide what material is appropriate for her ward.

Please understand that the rights of parents/guardians to decide what material is appropriate for her ward is not abrogated by any law, with the exception of pornography.

Furthermore, the child COULD legally buy the game in question, the ESRB rating system is voluntary, and not enforceable by law. It is the choice of retailers not to allow minors access to those games.

The question remains, did R*/Take2 mislead the consumer regarding content of the published media?

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Math, The Ancient]

I think it's the case of the Al Capone scenario..."if we can't get him on bootlegging, we'll get him on tax evasion" argument.

The cons of this game hate it already, sex or not, based on its 'released' content already. However, now that the easter-eggs reveal "sex" and the fact that 17 year-olds are still minors by law, this puts the companies involved in Al Capone's shoes.

I'm not comparing Rockstar or Take Two to Al Capone himself (the alcohol ban WAS later revoked), but this is the route they're taking; charging the companies of distributing sexual material (hidden or not) to a children market ("o dear god, please think of the children").

Hopefully, the attorney(s) for Rockstar, et.al. will successfully argue that "easter-eggs" are not uncommon because they often contain portions of the code that just didn't make the cut of the final release. Rather than rewrite the whole mess just to get rid of one scene, common practice is to just hide that portion of the code to be unlocked later when release deadlines and content-rating compliance can be better managed (alot of this is speculation on my part, but I suspect more truth to it than speculation). Their saving grace might be the argument that they "hid" the scene with the requirement that one does need unapproved hardware and reverse engineering for it to be shown. What will blow this case for the lady, though is from TFA itself:

Cohen said in the suit that she bought the game in late 2004 for her grandson when it was rated "M" for mature, for players 17 and older. According to the suit, she directed that it be taken away from her grandson, which was done.

She buys a "17yrs and older" game for a 14yr old and THEN directs it be taken away? Sounds fishy to me...seems she bought the game just to bring up this frivolous lawsuit at a later date.

Re:Wow, people are fools

[Math, The Ancient]

Not that it matters, really, since I personally think the "AO" was punitive, and intended to show that the ESRB was taking this seriously

You mean, rolled over to the political correctness police and drama (see previous posts about lack of genetalia...breasts do not count as genetalia).

Re:Wow, people are fools

[cmdrwhitewolf]

Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

Pregnancy!

You want to know why I say that? Just like my old church pastor used to sum up his response to all those questions on of lifes problems with a very succinct qoute, "Well, that's because God gave us both a free will AND a sex drive.".

Mind you, a lot of the conservative and religious types (particularly the women) really got ticked off about his reply - because they were trying to deny thinking about it that way. It really didn't sit well well with them, and they did whatever they could to suppress (Or should that be, repress?) than line of thinking. (Let's face it, that is what religion is about anyway - trying to suggest what people should be thinking about.) My pastor, being a matter of fact sort of man, thought it was silly to deny such self evident truths. Because in his opinion, it just lead to worse things.

And that's where I think all this ultra-uptightness about sex being portrayed in games (like GTA:SA) is getting it's legs from. People out there are (vainly) attempting to stop pregnancy (or whatever) by simply denying any thoughts about it!

Sorry, but that doesn't work any better than not thinking about dying staves off one's own eventual death does...

Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

I'm hoping she dies before anything comes of this. People like this need to go away.

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[vettemph]

She can take her lawyer and grandson with her too.

-AHole2

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[TripMaster Monkey]

I'm hoping she dies before anything comes of this.

I certainly don't. I'm hoping that she gets convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for buying a M-rated game for a 14-year-old, gets sentenced to a few weeks in a minimum-security institution (a lenient sentence due to her advnced age), and subequently dies in prison. I want this to be resolved before she shuffles off this mortal coil.

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[stinerman]

I would prefer a Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison ;-)

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[shawb]

I don't know... this is a lawsuit over hot coffe. Companies should know by now to use extreme caution with anyhthing with that moniker.

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[melikamp]

LOL wish I had funny mod points for you, chum...

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[GeneralHorel]

Don't blame the kid, he was just doing what every underaged kid who wanted GTA did; ask the parental unit(mom, dad, grandparent, etc) to buy it for them since he knows they wont bother reading the box or the labels. the lawyers and grandmother are the idiots in this case

Re:Maybe I'm an asshole, but...

[Mycroft_VIII]

That's too much information sir, let's just stick with figuring out this lady's just rewards for her actions.

no offence intended, that was just too good a straight-line to pass up:)

Mycroft

Misleading and Deceptive Practices

[Nairoz]

So, the age rating of the game, clearly printed on the box, isn't clear enough?

I fail to see how stating something clearly, ON THE BOX, can be considered misleading or deceptive.

Surely common sense will prevail here?

(As an aside - in the UK, GTA-SA is rated 18 - highest rating you can get without getting into the really nasty side of things)

This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA

Grandma bought the game for her grandson. Her 14-year old grandson.

Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...

Re:This line says it all.

[pclminion]

Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...

A bunch of people are saying this. Are you STUPID? If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

Re:This line says it all.

[EvilMagnus]

Exactly. What part of 'Mature - not for sale to under 17s' did she not understand?

Or maybe she just wasn't wearing her reading glasses at the time.

Re:This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?"

While the case can be made that taking a child to a R-rated movie is indeed contributing to delinquency, I'm going to focus instead on the second part of your statement:
Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

Wrong. Unless Grandma sits next to the child during every second of gameplay, sharing in the experience with him, it is not even remotely the same circumstance. The situation would be closer to Grandma getting the kid inside a theater where an R-rated movie is playing, and then leaving him to his own devices.

Next time, think through your analogy before you post, please.

Re:This line says it all.

[OhPlz]

If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

It's not the same. The parents supervise the child at the movies. I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

Re:This line says it all.

[pclminion]

Next time, think through your analogy before you post, please.

Naah, I'll pass on that offer.

Re:This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Re:This line says it all.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

What part of 'Mature - not for sale to under 17s' did she not understand?

Grandma bought it, and I'm assuming that she is not under 17. The real point should be: What the Hell was she doing buying a game that glorifies car theft, murder, and organized crime, for a 14 year old? This is a game that involves greasing police, mobsters, and by-standers, stealing cars, blowing things up, and just general anti-social behavior. But sex, something that even preachers do, is going too far? This lady is a moron.

Re:This line says it all.

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation would be closer to Grandma getting the kid inside a theater where an R-rated movie is playing, and then leaving him to his own devices.

er, correct me if im wrong but wouldnt this be worse than just getting him into an R rated movie?
In which case shouldnt there be more of a case against the grandma?

Re:This line says it all.

[wlan0]

And then sue the cinema or Universal because his grandson had nightmares.

Re:This line says it all.

[milkman_matt]

I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

For a 14 year old? hah, it shouldn't have made it past the intro in that case ;) Hell some of the game *I* was thinking "wow, that's f'd up." and I'm more than 'old enough' to play!

People need to .. I dunno, take responsibility for their own actions, or read ratings labels, or parent their children or something.. but that's probably asking waaaaay too much these days.

It's not Rockstar's fault that you're a bad parent, that GTA "taught your kid how to kill cops" or whatever that other story/lawsuit was, it's not rockstar's fault that you can't comprehend what a 'mature' rating means, or what the laundrylist of reasons for said rating on the back of the box, and it's not rockstar's fault that someone hacked the game and found a way to 'unlock' or 'add' a 'hidden' sex game. Rockstar put out a game, with a fair rating, and a ton of warnings about why it was rated the way it was, the game starts out with plenty of swearing and violence, and if you can't tell within the first 10 minutes of watching this game, after reading the box and the warnings that this game is not suitable for your child, then you have no room to go after Rockstar once you find out that 'everybody's doing it'.

Re:This line says it all.

[atezun]

Wrong. Unless Grandma sits next to the child during every second of gameplay, sharing in the experience with him, it is not even remotely the same circumstance. The situation would be closer to Grandma getting the kid inside a theater where an R-rated movie is playing, and then leaving him to his own devices.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the second circustance seem worse than the original?

Re:This line says it all.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Precisely my point.

Re:This line says it all.

[Anonymous Coward]

His analogy is no worse than your sig...

The first of many

[Shimdaddy]

Let this be the first of many comments to say that this is officially retarded. To buy a game that is rated for someone older than your child and then sue because content that is not accessible without serious binary editing is found is ridiculous. If your 14 year old wants cartoon sex, grandma, he can search for Hentai on google and find images far more erotic than in GTA.

Re:The first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you're far from the first.

Re:The first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you know what you're talking about.

Re:The first of many

[Mornelithe]

Actually, I think it'd be worse if he found some of the Disney porn out there. At least hentai has realistic-ish girls being fucked by nondescript males, demons, tentacles, dick-girl angels and so on. I think it's a little weirder to see Iago fuck princess Jasmine, or the white rabbit fuck Alice, considering those are beloved characters from his not-far-removed early childhood.

I guess this is pretty off topic, though.

Wow...

[SeekerDarksteel]

it contained hidden, sexually explicit scenes
So in the very first sentence of the article they prove that they don't mind spreading blatant disinformation. It's articles like this, with the journalistic integrity of a ball of earwax, that allow retarded subjects like this to continue on in the public eye.

On a side note, I hope that R*/Take Two has the balls to countersue for libel, fraud, and extortion.

Stupid.

[Sylver Dragon]

So, Granny fails to notice the M(17+) rating. Ok, it's not very prominent or well know. Then she completly ignores the box art, which I guess she could have overlooked on account of the way a lot of art is done these days. Finally, she didn't pick up on the fact that the game is named after a rather major felony. How oblivious do you have to be to buy this game for a 14 year old kid? Not to mention that she has managed to completly miss all of the noise made about the last installment. I'm sorry but she, and all of her offspring need to be scraped out of the gene pool as too stupid to breed.
Yes, she's an old granny, and may not get out much, but she has the ability to get a lawyer and sue, so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit. If she is able to track down a lawyer and start a lawsuit over this, she should have been capable of figuring out that this game may not have been appropriate for her grandson.

Re:Stupid.

[defkkon]

I agree with most of your post, but a couple minor points:

How oblivious do you have to be to buy this game for a 14 year old kid?

Not very, in this case. I can guarantee she had no idea what the game was like, and probably just wrote down what her Grandson told her. Then, she probably walked into the store and showed them the name of what she wanted. A 14 year old kid would know exactly what he wanted, and would probably have already played it at his friends house. She probably didn't do research into what would be fun for her grandson.

...so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit.

I bet she's not the one who started the lawsuit. She's a front, but there is a larger force behind it - whether its the kids parents, other immediate family members, or even someone who heard that she bought it for the grandson. There is probably a group of people behind this, using the old lady as their "story".

Re:Stupid.

[Fareq]

Actually, as I'm certain that many 14 year old kids are smart enough to know the difference between "real" and "fake", and as I would probably know enough about a close relative to know whether they are one of the 14-year-old kids that can handle it, and as I know GTA can be extremely entertaining, I really might go and buy it for a 14-year-old family member.

I would "ignore" the rating, the box art, and the idiots in Congress who want to tell me what I can and can't buy.

So there :)

Re:Stupid.

[Sylver Dragon]

Actually, I do agree with you that there are many 14 year olds who could play this game, Hot Coffee mod and all, and not be adversly affected by it. And if the parents believe that their child is one of those, then they should be free to buy it for them.
However, it would seem that this is not the belief of the parents and/or grandparent, so they should have done a better job of checking into what this kid was getting and playing.
Either way, it's the fault of the grandparent, in this case, and not the game manufacturer. There were enough things there to warn her off of buying it, if she thought that it might be inappropriate, and she still bought it.

Re:Stupid.

[Sylver Dragon]

I can guarantee she had no idea what the game was like, and probably just wrote down what her Grandson told her. Then, she probably walked into the store and showed them the name of what she wanted.

This still requires a bit of a failure to pay attention. As grandma was writing down the name of the game, she has to ignore the fact that it's name is still the same as a major felony. And, she would have seen the box when she bought it. Maybe I'm expecting a little too much for her to pay attention to what she is buying, but for her to turn around and be involved in a lawsuit after missing some rather clear warning signs, just strikes me as shirking all responsibility as an adult.

I bet she's not the one who started the lawsuit. She's a front, but there is a larger force behind it

I will concede that this is a possibility, in which case I would feel a little more forgiving for her role in it; but again, I just don't see how the responsibility for the 14 year old getting a hold of this game belongs anywhere but with the person who purchased it and gave it to the kid. The parents are probably also partly responsible for not noticing what he was playing and questioning it. Even if the kid got the game as a gift, if the parents feel it is inappropriate, they should take it away.
All that said, I would also be curious as to how he was possibly harmed by this? First off, did he actually install the mod? If not, then there was no way for him to access the content. If he did, how did he get a hold of it? Assumably, he has internet access, and do you really want to compare the Hot Coffee mod to what you can get on the interent? He's 14, I'm willing to bet that, by now, he has figured out how to type 'sex' into google. I know that when I was 14, I was fairly good at finding porn to masturbate to on BBS's, with the internet, I have even less trouble now.
This thing strikes me as yet another parent trying to cash in on their children. It used to be that you had kids and put them to work on the farm. Now, you have kids and let them run around in the world unsupervised, and wait for them to do something which you can sue over.

Re:Stupid.

[Math, The Ancient]

so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit

I agree...the bitch is probably only 45 years old with her 14 year old grandson. With such an awkward view toward sex, she and her daughter probably had teen pregancies and we'll learn the kid's a father at 16.

The solution

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Just package the game in a set of styrofoam titties, or require that stores set up their displays, the customer has to reach through the vagina hole of a big latex pussy with a throbbing red clit to grab a box.

That ought to make it clear to even the most shriveled up grandma that this game is not for children, and you're fucking responsible for what you buy, not anyone else.

Re:The solution

[chudgoo]

This is the kind of thing I'd like to see more of slashdot... Grotesque yet practical solutions to social problems! MOD "Profane MuthaFucka" UP!

Re:The solution

[Guppy06]

You're assuming she'd recognize what she was reaching into.

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy 3 copies :-D

gravy train

[Devir]

this is just some old chick jumping a potential sue happy gravy train in hopes of leaving a nice inheritance for her family when she dies (hopefully before the lawsuit settles). She stated in her suit that her grandson was 14 years of age when she bought a MA 17+ game for him. Right there in the complaint she admits her stupidity and guilt.

Think of the children!

[jon787]

Imagine the outrage if she had purchased her son the August 2005 issue of National Geographic Magazine. There is a photo of a nude woman in it! We must start checking IDs on magazine purchases and institute a rating system at once!

Re:Think of the children!

[mog007]

AHHH!!! NAKED PEOPLE!!!

Won't SOMEBODY please think of the children?! Our kids might grow up and decide that they like to fuck, and upon doing so, they might continue the species onward! HEAVENS!

The above is an attempt (albeit, a poor one) at satire. Please mod accordingly.

Re:Think of the children!

[activesynapsis]

Hey now, National Geographics are the sole reason school libraries still exist. It's a sacred ceremony when the graduating 8th grader enlightens the 6th grader as to where the one really worn, National Geographic in the library is... hidden amongst all the unread and pristine issues.

Re:Think of the children!

[NewStarRising]

Except that this case is about fully-clothed sex, where as that NG picture is of a nude woman in a not-particularly-sexy pose. Nudity and sex are not the same.
And the GTA HC mod is FULLY CLOTHED.

It isn't, but doesn't this feel like a dupe?

[sgant]

Perhaps it's because this story has been on every other news site and blog and newsgroup in the world...nah, if wasn't on Slashdot it didn't happen.

"Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..."

[pclminion]

"I thought my little grandson would only be partaking in the wholesome activities of running over dogs, raping prostitutes, murdering police officers, and slinging crack cocaine to street whores. But instead his precious little mind has been corrupted by THE EVILS OF CONSENSUAL SEX!"

Fuck you, grandma. You are, plain and simply, an idiot.

Re:"Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you kill them afterwards doesn't make it rape. They got into the car consentually, they took their payment. It's actually vehicular manslaughter.

Re:"Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..."

[le_defaut_tragique]

Whoa whoa whoa. Calm down, buster. There aren't any dogs in Grand Theft Auto.

Re:"Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..."

[Allison Geode]

indeed, the only animals in GTA san andreas are jellyfish and sharks. i'm not sure you're able to kill either of them. there are also no children, because if you could involve children in the mayhem that gta allows, well, thats just sick.

I should sue the local strip club

[BlackCobra43]

For "letting" me sneak in when I was 17. Obviously my actions don't matter as long as I can be the victim and sue, sue, sue.

Rating

[shamowfski]

The game is rated M for mature. That is 17 and over. Unless she was buying it for her, then rockstar is in no way at fault. The rating is clearly placed on the case of the game. If they had rated it E for everyone, then she was mislead. This is assinine. I'm moving.

Re:Rating

[Farmer Tim]

Even if she was buying it for herself, it would still be her problem since she would still be responsible for supplying restricted material to a minor (or whatever the equivalent is in the US if there is one).

It is assinine, but frankly, you don't move me at all (I'm an insensitive clod).

More interesting...

[SolarCanine]

...will be:

(a) will Rockstar report her to the local Dept of Social Services for providing the game to the 14 year old,

(b) will Rockstar turn around, if this lawsuit actually proceeds, and sue the modders for violating EULAs, and

(c) will Rockstar bite the bullet and start refusing to submit their games voluntarily to the ESRB for rating at all?

As far as I'm concerned, the hype surrounding this, the Congressional involvement, and the lack of parental responsibility in the equation are far more criminal than anything that Rockstar has done.

Re:More interesting...

[Tanmi-Daiow]

And the sad thing about all of what you said, is that if and when Rockstar wins, everyone who doesnt know anything about games (the people who listen to Jack Thompson) is gonna make a huge stink about how the Gov't is now supporting the "horrible gamemaker people". Its really a lose-lose situation for the game industry

goddamn stupid motherfuckers

[TheClam]

"Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?"

It damn well better. She should be suing the ESRB instead. Or perhaps watching the Price is Right like grandmas should and SingTFU about buying mature games for her teenagers.

CNN Covered as well...

[harryk]

Thats funny, I submitted the same story earlier today from CNN,here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/27/game. lawsuit.ap/index.html Oh well... I guess we should just chalk this up to another Stella award nominee... harryk

Re:CNN Covered as well...

[mark_hill97]

Dont worry, your post will be the dupe

You can bet it wasn't this grandma!

[RaisinBread]

http://oghc.blogspot.com/

Re:You can bet it wasn't this grandma!

[t_stehilaire]

Dude :) Grandma liked San Andreas, she just wished it wasn't so much like the Sims. She prefered GTA III to the newer ones; I think only because of the switch from old school style GTA to a newer more accessible format. And she likes to snipe people when she has a bad day.

Re:You can bet it wasn't this grandma!

[arbitraryaardvark]

Maybe it's this http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m grandma.
See, it's another dupe.

Re:You can bet it wasn't this grandma!

[t_stehilaire]

Here you go, everybody: here's my Grandma's response to the elderly protector of young minds: (small video file) http://home.cwru.edu/~amk26/videos/gamergrandma_6. wmv She has a WHOLE different take on the situation

Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[quantax]

Rockstar really made their bed with this one, and now they are going to have to sleep in it. Originally I blew this off as a bunch of prudes getting steamed over some mods for a game, but now its been shown that this is a built in 'feature'. I'd like to defend Rockstar, but really cannot as it is affording them special treatment at the expense of other people.

The video game industry & audience has been VERY good to Rockstar; they've enjoyed massive sales & popularity, and at this point 4 sequels to an originally top-down perspective game centered around driving, stealing, and violence. And, with greater popularity comes greater inspection of the product by those who do not like it and wish for it to be banned. Given that GTA is a homing-beacon target for 'family values' type groups, it seems utterly retarded to package a sex game into it without informing the game raters, and then act surprised when players uncover it, then lie about the nature of it, and *wham* you just gave those 'family values' groups all the ammo they need to actually ACT and not just TALK about regulating video games further. My feeling is summarized such that while I do not think Rockstar intentionally tried to screw us this way, they have inadvertantly abused their success in such a way that it will hurt everyone else a great deal more than it will hurt them due to an anti-sex backlash amongst lobbying groups. Remember, with great power comes great responsiblity; with great success built upon the fellow shoulders of your video game colleages, comes the responsibility to not do things that will make it harder for your colleages to do their jobs in their comparatively smaller successes.

And for the record, the Hot Coffee 'game' is entertaining once for the gimmick & shock value, but otherwise is as interesting as Virtual Valerie and definitely not worth the price that Rockstar is going to pay in the end at the hands of moral crusaders.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[iCEBaLM]

Originally I blew this off as a bunch of prudes getting steamed over some mods for a game, but now its been shown that this is a built in 'feature'.

Built in feature, if you mod your game, enter a cheat code and then spend a lot of time trying to unlock that particular scene.

It was not intended to be in the final game, it was disabled and can only be enabled by modifying the game. How can you call this "built in" when you need to patch your game to activate it?

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[Pxtl]

Nonsense. There are numerous technical reasons for having contrary content included in the game that is not designed ever to be exposed to human eyes. For example, in the sims the models get naked, and are blurred - the blur code can be disabled. Alternately, a hypothetical game could actually model the characters as naked models and put clothes over them (similar to barbie dolls) for better cloth physics. I expect that will be happening in games in a few years. Likewise, if a scripted screen includes a naked model, but the camera shot only shoots from the neck up, then a case similar to rockstar could occur.

External content is external content - even if it's just flipping a bit.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[xenocide2]

More importantly, what people are upset about is content that you'd still have to actively pursue in order to find. It's not like a very much more legitimate complaint about nine year olds doing a report on the White House and finding themselves innundated with the sort of graphic pornography. Granted, Whitehouse.com no longer exhibits this, but I can only imagine there's others involved.

I digress. There's a difference between shielding children from a very devolved representation of sexuality and keeping it away from people who actively seek it. Those who are calling for the destruction of R* fail to make that important distinction, possibly because they see no value whatsoever in pornography itself.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[Anonymous Coward]

OK...so how do you justify leaving in nipple textures?

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[squiggleslash]

It's a disabled "feature". The most probable reason for it being in there is that it was intended to be in the final game, but the publishers had a last minute attack of nerves and asked the programmers to remove it. Assuming you have some experience of programming, you'll know it is infinitely easier to disable code than remove it. Right now, the game is withdrawn from sales, and Rockstar are working on removing the code. Not as easy as putting in an "if(0==1){}" wrapper around the bit that calls up that scene, is it?

If I were Rockstar, I'd be looking at this and saying "Fuck it. We're not going to make a profit from this one, let's annoy everyone and put the entire game into the public domain." But that's just me, and I don't have shareholders or other people's contracts to satisfy.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[melikamp]

You mean, this awful smut? Ouch. I have to wash my eyes now...

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[DerekLyons]

Nonsense. There are numerous technical reasons for having contrary content included in the game that is not designed ever to be exposed to human eyes.

Cite them.

For example, in the sims the models get naked, and are blurred - the blur code can be disabled.

Which is meaningless When you disable the blur you see - nothing. There are no genitals to be hidden that require the blur. The blur is there to conform to the modern expectation (via tv) that naked humans will be blurred in certain areas.

External content is external content - even if it's just flipping a bit.

ROTFLMAO. Even though the CRC of the source files remains unchanged, regardless of the status of the bit... Even though the content is on a read-only disk... it's external content.

The mental contortions /.ers have been going through to avoid admitting that there is a problem is utterly astonishing.

Re:Don't Cry For Me Argentina

[cthulhubob]

There aren't any hidden genitals revealed by the original Hot Coffee mod either. The models "having sex" are fully clothed.

There is a new version out that replaces the textures in the minigame portion with nude skins; that would in fact be content that the modder added, regardless of whether you want to split hairs over the original version.

Also, did you miss the fact that the guy responsible for the furor over this is now actually going after The Sims for having "nude skins"? He's a bullshit artist, pure and simple.

She's culpable

[Quarters]

I wrote about this on my blog yesterday. Here are the important bits

She's suing not only for herself, but for "everyone else who purchased the game." Since I purchased it I am someone she thinks she is protecting. So let me talk to Ms. Florence Cohen of NY directly for a second...

Hey, Flo, I don't need your protection. I can read the labels on the box just fine by myself.

Yes, GTA:SA is a mature game. That's why it was sold with an ESRB rating of "M" (now "AO" for adults only). "M" games are sales limited to people who are seventeen years of age or older. Rockstar, Take Two, the reseller, and the clerk at the store did nothing wrong by selling Ms. Cohen GTA:SA. That is, unless she is only sixteen yet has managed to have two generations of Cohens come after her. Her mistake was her own. She gave an "M" title to a person under the age of seventeen. If the government wants laws to punish clerks who sell titles to people outside of the posted age ranges shouldn't there also be punishments for people who traffic these games to children? She, either intentionally or not, was corrupting her grandson by giving him a game that the game industry reviewed, rated, and clearly labeled as not suitable for him.

Outside of Ms. Cohen no one is at fault here. The voluntary rating worked, the box was clearly labeled with the restriction, and the store didn't sell the game to anyone under the proper age.

I'll close by suggesting a new title for the article, "Ignorant Grandmother who bought 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' without reading the label is suing the manufacturer instead of taking responsibility for her mistake".

Re:She's culpable

[phoenix42]

Right on. She is providing a terrible example of parenting by ratings board. I don't want her suing on my behalf. I wonder if I can find a lawyer to sue her for defaming my character. Personally, I think R-star screwed up and now they're going to get pwned by lawyers for the next 5 years, but people need to get a grip. Take some personal responsibility, instead of just buying whatever your kids are screaming for for thier birthday. Read the box and know what you're buying 1st.

Re:She's culpable

[Farmer Tim]

That is, unless she is only sixteen yet has managed to have two generations of Cohens come after her.

If that's the case, she shouldn't be worried about sex in a video game.

Re:She's culpable

[LWATCDR]

You could argue that Rockstar is at fault for "falsely" rating the game as M instead of A0. That is the difference between R and X.
You can say that it really doesn't matter since it is a small difference but it could make all the difference.

Re:She's culpable

[Quarters]

No, in this instance that has no relevance whatsoever. Her grandson is fourteen. She bought either an M (17+) or AO (18+) game. Either way he was below the minimum recommended age.

She can't possibly argue that a 17+ game was acceptable to a 14 year old but the same game rated 18+ wasn't. The games industry warned her. She ignored the warning. She's at fault.

Re:She's culpable

[LWATCDR]

Actually yes you can. Look at movies.
It is perfectly legal to take a 14 year old to an R rated movie. R means that it is up to the parent of guardian to decide. NC-17 or X means that it is NOT up to the parent.
The M and AO can be seen as the same thing. M means that the parent can decide that the child is mature enough to play the game. AO means that no one under 18 should see it.
Should she have bought GTA for a 14 year old? I do not think so. Does anyone really need to buy GTA-SA? I do not thinks so. So I do not buy or play it.
What I am saying is that could be enough to make a jury decide that Rockstar is partly to blame.

Re:She's culpable

[Mornelithe]

MPAA ratings are only enforceable at actual movie theaters, though, since they're not laws. It's up to you if you want to buy your kid an NC-17 movie for viewing in your own home. No one's going to arrest you for doing so. So when you look at the portion of the movie market that's actually analogous to video games, the parents are ultimately responsible in all cases, so there's no grounds to say that Rockstar should be responsible based on that case.

When there are big gaming complexes set up that allow kids to play M games with parental supervision, but restrict AO games to people 18 and over, and somehow an AO game slips into the M section, that line of argument might hold some water.

Until then, it's still just an analogy to a completely separate rating system, where the only connection between them is that, "they're both rating systems." Drawing any conclusions based on that connection alone would be pretty good grounds for people shouting "logical fallacy."

In any case, a jury deciding something about the ESRB rating system based on the MPAA rating system would be stupid.

Again?

[MarkGriz]

Again with the grandma, and the hot coffee, and the lawsuits....

When will they learn to stay away from hot coffee.

Re:Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that McDonalds coffee suit was anything but frivolous.

But still, that was pretty damn funny.

Jay Leno

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Leno had a joke about this last night: "What the Hell was a grandma doing buying GTA for her kid anyway? Was the store out of beer and BB guns?"

It's a valid point: GTA is saturated with violence of some of the most offensive kind, a little sex should be the least of a parent or grand parent's worries, right? It's OK to grease police and mobsters, steal cars and blow things up, pick up hookers, but sex, now that's going too far?

Re:Jay Leno

[immortal]

LOL, excellent point for Leno. I wonder how many other law suits this grandma has filed. I bet she wasted her retirement money at the casino and needs new income. I hope she faces charges for deliqency of a minor.

Re:Jay Leno

[PapaBoojum]

It's OK to grease police and mobsters, steal cars and blow things up, pick up hookers, but sex, now that's going too far?

Its the great US moral hypocrisy regarding violence and sex: Its okay for kids to know about and see all the myriad ways humans can be forced to exit this mortal coil, but its an abonimation if kids learn about or see the one way humans come into the world.

Family Services

[Bios_Hakr]

First off, Rockstar should report her and the children's parents to family services for neglect.

Next, they should sue the kid and his parents. They could claim that he modified the ROT-26 protected binary and used the product in a manner not in accordance with the EULA.

Sue the grandma also. She bought the game and then gave it to someone else. I'm pretty sure the EULA only gives the purchacer the right to use the product.

They should probably sue Jack Thompson for public disclosure of a unaddressed security flaw. Jack should have sent a private memo to Rockstar and given them time to revove the flaw.

Then they should sue Mattell. Your Rockstar should claim they bought a barbie doll and a ken doll for their kids. The kids were latter seen playing with the dolls having simulated sex.

Then sue Lego. You can put thoes things into some funny positions making it look like simulated sex.

Sue the Catholic church for including "Song of Solomon" in the Bible. Sue the Protestants while you are at it.

They should Sue Bill Clinton for having simulated sex in the Oval Office.

Sue Hillary for not divorcing her cheating, lying husband. Women putting up with that shit degrades the American Family. Damn her for not setting a better example for our young women.

Re:Family Services

[Farmer Tim]

Sue the Catholic church for including "Song of Solomon" in the Bible. Sue the Protestants while you are at it.

No, violence and sex are OK, as long as you call it "smiting" and "knowing". That's why the bible isn't M-rated.

Its pretty "known" up, really.

Re:Family Services

[SoCalChris]

Then sue Lego. You can put thoes things into some funny positions making it look like simulated sex.

Even better than plain old lego sex, is lego beastiality.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiali ty/lv18_23a.html

Re:Family Services

[Anonymous Coward]

You know .. I've always supported Bill Clinton and was always pretty disgusted by how far the "scandal" with his infidelity went. As far as I was concerned it was between him, his wife and Monica. The public had no business getting involved nor should anyone have cared.

However, your last joke actually brings up an excellent point. Hillary Clinton stood by her husband and to this day has not divorced him for his extra marital affairs. Yet now she is screaming about protecting family values ?

Re:Family Services

[melikamp]

This is the funniest sex/violence in media comment I read in a long time...

Suit leads to email discovery, then the truth ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Grandma's suit may let "hostile" lawyers get a look at RockStar's emails and other internal documents. Then the truth may come out as to whether the offensive content was there intentionally, waiting to be "discovered", or simply forgetten cruft that didn't make the final cut but did not get deleted due to "honest" oversights.

All the knee-jerk reactions to the contrary this suit may be quite useful.

I thought this story was about McDonalds!

[Anonymous Coward]

At first glance, I thought the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was back again, in some kind of modified form.

Ooh dear

[delorriana]

You'd think the big M for mature (17+ and up) would be a hint. Thats like buying a DVD for your kid and targeting the studio because it was a sex-filled R rated movie. They both have ratings on the boxes, the video games even more so with the ERSB rating on the front. Now, if the kid was 17 then the argument would be much more interesting....

The sad thing is that even though this seems to be a simple case, at least one person is willing to be more prudish than reasonable. The guy who runs my favorite comic book store back home got arrested -and- convicted for selling adult material... to an adult! Apparently selling such things at a comic store in a seperate room you had to be 18+ to enter had a dangerous influence on the kids. The horror! Meanwhile the 7/11 a block down has porno mags on the newstand a few feet away from the comics books.

On a completely different note... I wish -my- grandmother would buy me the new GTA. *sigh*

Imagine the lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what lawyer was moronic enough to help grandma with this case? There really are some idiotic people down there in america...

Re:Imagine the lawyer

[BaudKarma]

There's nothing moronic about it. This will probably get expanded to a class-action suit, and then settled out of court. Rockstar will not admit to any wrongdoing, but will offer to replace the game for anyone who bought it with a new version that has the offending parts removed.

Oh, and Rockstar will agree to pay the plaintiffs legal fees of x.y million dollars. Net result: Rockstar loses lots of money, some legal firm makes lots of money, and the consumers who were "wronged" get jack. Remind me to opt out of this suit when it happens.

It's too bad, because I'd love to see this Grandma in court. Lets show the jury a few choice scenes from the game, including the language, the gratuitious violence, the cop-killing, the glorification of organized crime and general anti-social behavior. Then we'll ask her if she had no objection to any of that content being put in the hands of her 14-year-old grandson.

Pure stupidity.

[keyne9]

Considering an "M" rating is the equivalent to an "R" rating.. she's on crack.

You do not take a 14 year old to an "R"-rated movie, then sue the filmmaker because some boobies flashed on the screen (while the protagonist is in between druggin', murderin', and all kinds of other wholesome activities).

You can see more explicit sex on Skinimax and I'm pretty sure nobody has gone up in arms over the much-hated "time hack" (in which young rascals stay up past their bed tiem to see terrible softcore 'sex').

When will idiots come to their senses?

Re:Pure stupidity.

[NetFusion]

I'm pretty sure nobody has gone up in arms over the much-hated "time hack"

Rockstar are using the "time hack" for thier defense.

Oh god

[Reeee]

Fuck that stupid bitch, and fuck her faggot grandson too.

Re:Oh god

[Tim Browse]

Mr Wilde? Oscar? Is that you?

M (17+) and AO(18+)

[conigs]

Living in the US, I'm always amazed at ratings like this..... *Before I continue, yes I understand that basically the M rating is a suggestion while the AO rating is more of a rule not to sell to minors* We all know what the game involves... and apparently that's suitable if you're seventeen. But because there's a hidden minigame requiring a mod to unlock it that has explicit cartoon sex, it's no longer suitable for 17-year olds... not you have to wait a year before you understand that cartoon sex. I never quite understood that... just like I can walk into a car rental place at 24 and 11 months old and not be able to rent a car.... one month later, I'm considered old and wise enough to rent one. I know there has to be a limit at one point.... but not much happens between 17 and 18 (other than "officially" being considered an adult) that seems to warrant two different ratings. Incidentally, I'd also like to point out that NC17 rating for movies used to be X..... hmmm... so you can watch real people pretending to have sex on film at 17, but you're really not ready to watch polygons poorly representing people on your TV having sex... *didn't rtfa, hasn't played GTA (no interest), sick of the hype over this issue prevading over real issues in current events*

Re:M (17+) and AO(18+)

[Anonymous Coward]

I just ordered this game off of R* warehouse, soley so I could see this Mod.

I'm hoping it will be hotter than the film, Barely Legal Ski Camp, that I downloaded off of eMule.

Re:M (17+) and AO(18+)

[jmarr]

It's amazing how much "growing up" can happen in just 1 year... that's a whole lotta livin!

Re:M (17+) and AO(18+)

[belg4mit]

You can rent a car when you're younger than 25 at most places, but you'll pay at least twice as much.

Re:Suit leads to email discovery, then the truth .

[quantax]

Definitely an intriguing idea especially in light of Rockstars sad behavior after this became public, in which they did everything but accept responsibility for including the material in question. That then gives moral crusaders some pretty convincing ammo to use against game developers & publishers. 'Hey look, they cant even take responsibility for including the content let alone properly policing it! We need more government oversight & regulations...' you know the drill. For Rockstars and indeed all game developers sakes, lets hope this was nothing more than some developers having a bit of fun on their own time.

It figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Last name: Cohen

I'm sorry but when I see stories like this, I hope that it's not stereotypical, but then it is, and what can you say? Someone trying to get a quick buck.

First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

MAN! This whole fiasco is bouncing around the topics here more than a superball! Alright, let's get a few things straight:

Let's set aside all concepts that this 85 year old lady is a shriveled old busy body who wants to feel important. That's Jack Thompson you guys are thinking about; wrong person! Let's try putting ourselves in her shoes for a second.

You are the grandmother of a well rounded 14 year old son. He's getting angsty from puberty and general teenager stuff, but he ain't that bad a kid. His parents let him watch some R rated movies, and don't mind the music he listens to either. They are also pretty tolerant about the games he plays.

So you know your grandson wants this game, and let's say that you know at the very least that it is pretty graphic, but IT DOESN'T CONTAIN ANYTHING HE HASN'T SEEN BEFORE! If he's watched R rated movies, he's probably familiar with the violence. If he listens to today's music, then the game's language ought to be no shock to him.

So TRUSTING that there was no softcore or hardcore sex stuff in the game, she buys it and gives it to her grandson as a gift.

THEN you find out that the company slipped in this mini-game that involves graphic/explicit sex, and you realize YOU were the one that bought it for him. Sure it requires using a cheat device and a cheat code, but with a little web surfing and owning said cheat device, it isn't too difficult to unlock if the effort is put into it.

Graphic sex is THE taboo thing that the grandson's parents and yourselves think he is a BIT young for! Especially at the age when he's first discovering girls and you don't want him to get any misconceptions about the fairer sex.

So now you've bought it, found out about it, and took it away from him before he could go and find that cheat to unlock the sex scene. But now you realize that you're $50 in the hole thanks to that, and right now you should be pretty angry!

So whose fault was it? Was it the ratings board for not properly giving the game an AO rating, reserved for games with graphic sex? Well as it turns out, it wasn't the ratings board's fault because they changed the rating after they found out and proved all of this, so now eyes turn to the company.

Rockstar.

Rockstar has pushed the envelope of controversy and taken it all the way to the bank, and right now you are pretty upset that they hoodwinked the ratings board, and you yourself too. I mean if you can't trust the company who makes the thing, then who CAN you trust?

Now, you want your $50 back, and you think that all other parents and grandparents who are in the same boat as you are should get their money back for the copies they don't want anymore! If there's a recall on the game, then it's only fair to refund the money or replace the discs with clean copies!

So, now we have dear Flo here going to court with a lawyer who ISN'T Jack Thompson, and she, as of right now, can have a pretty good case against the company. They did NOT disclose the mini-game to the ratings board, and it went unmentioned until July when it spread like wildfire, and when something spreads that quickly, you know that it can be easily accessed by any tech savvy kid. 14 is a good age where just about any kid can find any information they want on the net without strict parent control. What's more, trying to block finding the cheats is nearly impossible because SEVERAL sites can have this information!

So, in the board of lawsuits...

1) Grandma has a case against Rockstar because they provided millions of discs to parents who did NOT want graphic sex placed before their kids. Violence and language, and sexual suggestiveness is one thing, but graphic sex is THE MOST TABOO thing possible in media. Movies, books, TV, and radio do not have graphic explicit sex material on them. Think about the last time you listened to a porn scene on the radio, watched full blown sex on TV (BY HUMANS!), read a graphically detailed sex scene in a book, and saw a full out s

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[mabu]

Dude.. dude...

Switch to decaf.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Believe it or not, I drink tea over coffee! :)

This is just my usual length of posts because I usually finding myself writing articles more so than posts. I really got to find a better place to put these things!

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[SeekerDarksteel]

Graphic sex is THE taboo thing that the grandson's parents and yourselves think he is a BIT young for!

Umm...well then it's a good thing that there is no graphic sex in the hot coffee mod. Err...but wait...why let a little thing like reality get in the way of self righteous indignation.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[leland242]

"MAN! This whole fiasco is bouncing around the topics here more than a superball! Alright, let's get a few things straight:"

Okay...

"You are the grandmother of a well rounded 14 year old son. He's getting angsty from puberty and general teenager stuff, but he ain't that bad a kid. His parents let him watch some R rated movies, and don't mind the music he listens to either. They are also pretty tolerant about the games he plays."

You assume a lot.

"So you know your grandson wants this game, and let's say that you know at the very least that it is pretty graphic, but IT DOESN'T CONTAIN ANYTHING HE HASN'T SEEN BEFORE! If he's watched R rated movies, he's probably familiar with the violence. If he listens to today's music, then the game's language ought to be no shock to him."

A 14 your old male, one who has the freedom to listen to and watch almost whatever he wants, has seen hard core porn. Period.

"THEN you find out that the company slipped in this mini-game that involves graphic/explicit sex, and you realize YOU were the one that bought it for him. Sure it requires using a cheat device and a cheat code, but with a little web surfing and owning said cheat device, it isn't too difficult to unlock if the effort is put into it."

That does not sound like a "mini-game". That sounds like unused code. There are a millions examples of these easter eggs - everything from cheat codes to "lost levels" and equipment. If you unlock it, then more power to you. But it is not what the developer had in mind for the final product.

"So whose fault was it? Was it the ratings board for not properly giving the game an AO rating, reserved for games with graphic sex?"

No. The game, as it was meant to be played, was rated M. AO is a misnomer unless the game shipped with the Hot Coffee Mod applied.

"So, now we have dear Flo here going to court with a lawyer who ISN'T Jack Thompson, and she, as of right now, can have a pretty good case against the company. They did NOT disclose the mini-game to the ratings board, and it went unmentioned until July when it spread like wildfire, and when something spreads that quickly, you know that it can be easily accessed by any tech savvy kid."

Why, exactly, would you disclose that buried in the code, inaccessable to normal users of the game, is this bit of code?

"1) Grandma has a case against Rockstar because they provided millions of discs to parents who did NOT want graphic sex placed before their kids. Violence and language, and sexual suggestiveness is one thing, but graphic sex is THE MOST TABOO thing possible in media. Movies, books, TV, and radio do not have graphic explicit sex material on them. Think about the last time you listened to a porn scene on the radio, watched full blown sex on TV (BY HUMANS!), read a graphically detailed sex scene in a book, and saw a full out sex scene in a movie that wasn't porn!"

Uh, dude, are you insane. Howard Stern, every morning, has some chick moaning away in some sex scene. Daytime soaps have many steamy moments, as do evening shows. Not "hard core", but neither is the sex in the Hot Coffee mod - which, I wonder, have you even seen? Books, aside from Harry Potter, have lots of sex in them. In fact, most of the books I read have some sex. Some is graphic, other is just incidental. It's really a non-issue. Not to mention, do you have any idea how much money "THE MOST TABOO" media makes each year? I don't have exact figures handy (and I'm not about to look it up at work) but I understand it makes more money than any other form of entertainment. Not exactly taboo.

"And I'm talking MORE than frontal nudity. I'm talking about the full monty!"

The male character in Hot Coffee is wearing pants and the female has no discernable genetalia.

"Chances are, she could win and Rockstar will have to pay back and accept all returned copies of the game. Going beyond that will be a tricky fight, but even refunding ALL THOSE GAMES can cost a HELUVA LOT OF MONE

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Oh CRIPES! First we got the people that are so serious that you can cut the tension with a knife in the Politics section, and now I got people who are pretty laid back and easy going here in YRO area.

First of all, while yes I am making assumptions regarding the stance of the grandmother, would you say they are radical assumptions? I would think they are pretty down to earth myself. And as for the ESRB, I am NOT assuming that! That is TRUTH!

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/21/news_61295 57.html

This is a direct interview with the President of the ESRB, and she puts it loud and clear here that they were unaware of the Hot Coffee content, and YES it was hidden, YES it requires a patch or a cheat code to unlock... ...BUT it is on the disc to BEGIN with, and the entire FACT that it is there is why Rockstar is in the wrong here! That content should NEVER... EVER have made it onto the final product! It is STUPID and naieve to think that locked content won't be cracked open, and the only sure fire way to make sure that you have an airtight alibi should something like this arise is to make DAMN sure that the content is not on the disc to begin with!

Rockstar FAILED to do that, and instead of admitting to it to begin with, they tried to COVER IT UP by putting the blame on the person who modded the game. And then when the truth came to light that the content WAS in fact made by Rockstar, then Rockstar took actions, but not until the game industry and politicians came down on them.

ESRB policy is that EVERYTHING, locked or not, that is on the disc MUST be reviewed by a board to determine the rating. If they had revealed this at the ESRB review, they could have easily fixed the problem, and resubmitted it instead of making more than 6 MILLION COPIES that had the content on them!

Yes the porn industry is a large industry, and whether or not it's comparable to games, I have no idea what the numbers are! But that's besides the point! If you're going to get porn, get porn! If you're going to get a game that has porn on it, one way or another, then at least let people KNOW its there.

Rockstar SHOULD care about ratings since the self-imposed ratings are what keeps the government from doing it themselves and that would be MUCH worse!

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Scarblac]

Yes the porn industry is a large industry, and whether or not it's comparable to games, I have no idea what the numbers are! But that's besides the point! If you're going to get porn, get porn! If you're going to get a game that has porn on it, one way or another, then at least let people KNOW its there.

A video game man in pants making suggestive moves towards a video game women without genitalia ISN'T PORN in any sense of the word.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Riddle me this! How are you going to explain the difference to a judge? :)

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Anonymous Coward]

That content should NEVER... EVER have made it onto the final product!

In a game which centres around crime, violence, and sexual themes, why should a cartoonish depiction of sexual relations between a man wearing pants and a woman without genitalia raise an eyebrow, let alone be censored in any way?

And for the record, anyone old enough to own this game can legally have sex themselves; so it's hardly a corruption of youth to remind them of their legal rights in any particular regard.

If you're going to get a game that has porn on it, one way or another, then at least let people KNOW its there.

It's not porn. And even if it was, so what?!?

The game has a central theme involving murder and violence, and is labeled for sexual content. Griping about a lack of a "porn warning" for GTA is a lot like whining about a lack of a "tracking in mud" warning on a horror movie.
--
AC

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[JoeSchmoe999]

Do you know what the current acceptable definition of "Porn" is? The U.S. Supreme Court defined obsentity in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." I don't see this "Mod" as applying to above. At least not in NY.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Hmm, well in that case, I have to say that the Hot Coffee game fits under b. It depicts sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. The girlfriend is going down on said guy with oral sex. It's also possible to switch positions, and the audio is just as raunchy and fits the mood 100%!

You can question whether it is in a patently offensive way, but that's all up in the air now isn't it? You'd have to go to court and prove that not having a dick being sucked is grounds for not being patently offensive, or that oral sex or any of the other positions shown in the Hot Coffee content are not the sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. That would be a VERY tricky battle, and require plenty of research, and time and effort to convince the court that the content does not cross the line from R to NC17!

Frankly, I don't think Rockstar wants to waste that much time because deep down I think they know that they goofed up and are doing what it takes to recover. This goof up is not a minor thing, this is a MAJOR screw up of massive proportions! Sure it may have been a small oversight, but the consequences and repercussions have made this small oversight something big by now!

And remember, this is NOT a mod! We are talking about content on the disc, locked OR unlocked! Modding is right out! The fact remains that if the content on the disc was there to begin with, then it is Rockstar's mistake for not catching it and removing it from the final version!

A practice which should be part of ALL software! If something is on the software disc that isn't in the final cut, then it should not be there, whether it is accessible or not!

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[noodler]

What i'd like to know is:
Will you buy a M-rated game for your kid when she/he will be 14?

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[JoeSchmoe999]

But just one of the three isn't enough, it has to fail all 3 of the tests. A mod to unlock something on a disc is still a mod if the area on the disc is supposed to be inaccesable. (It is still changing the way the game was designed to play in the final cut.) I would not argue that it should or should not have been removed, just that it isn't obscene (failing to pass the SCOTUS test). BTW, the usage of that many CAPS just makes your argument more likely to be ignored by reasonable people.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Depends on the game and just how mature my kid is when they reach that age. It all takes different variables that the parent has to consider as opposed to a "I made the rules before you were born and I will never sway from them" kind of situation.

I know a co-worker who has a little boy she adopted shortly after he was born. The little guy is 6 years old right now, but has some issues going on. This little boy can take stuff like Power Rangers and some mild language and violence like in Star Wars Ep. 3. Parents took him to the movies, he sat through it, wasn't scared, nothing the parents minded, and the kid came out okay.

Then there's Harry Potter... the kid can NOT take Harry Potter! It freaks the jeebies out of him! Whenever a scene comes up dealing with Harry losing his parents, the kid bawls like he was just dropped down a well!

It's pretty clear that the kid can take some things, but not others! It's the duty of a parent to make sure to keep an eye on their kid to see how they react to things on TV, in movies, and IN GAMES! A 6-year old is pretty darn young to be playing games, but that doesn't mean that there aren't games for kids that age. Anything Rated E is perfect material!

Younger than 6... better get them an EC!

The point is that whether 6 or 14, it is up to the parent to make the decision based on what they feel their kids can handle. On the flipside, there is also exposing the kid to the movies and games of the past that you think they should know about!

When I have kids, Star Wars is going to be old hat, save for the die hard fans and book authors. That just means that I got to find the original Trilogy, sit down with my kids, and watch it with them. If they can take it at a young age, then I might try other movies like Gremlins to see how they react.

Same thing goes with games, if a kid can listen to language and not talk like a sailor, then I won't have a problem with language. If a kid sees violence and doesn't act it out or seem overly aggressive (or social isolated on the flipside) then I won't have a problem with violence. Sex is the most difficult and taboo of them all, but if a kid is grown up enough to know that skanky/slutty female characters in movies are not what real women are like, then I won't have a problem with that either.

It all depends on my exposing them to popular culture from here and then and seeing how they react. If they find something neat they want to share with me, I'll take the time to see what they want, and if I find it inappropriate, I can tell them WHY I find it to be that way, and see what they think about it.

There is a guy named Prof. Henry Jenkins who is a professor at MIT and studies the effects and results of popular culture on today's youth. He has even presented before Congress when there was a kerfuffle over what drove kids to shoot up their school in Littleton. The fact is that he pointed out that pushing away the popular culture of today is pointless and that we should listen to our kids and not try and push away or shove aside what they like today.

For my generation, video games are the current hot topic and draw a lot of attention because it is a new media. In the future, it may be virtual reality that draws the ire of politicians and so on, claiming THAT is the murder training machine or ruiner of children's innocence!

Since generations of today are now being defined by pop culture (you can define the 70's and 80's pretty easily these days), it is important to defend the culture you have now and to also embrace the pop cultures of the past. Pushing it down and making it underground doesn't do any good. Listening to the kids and sharing your pop culture will do wonders for them. As they grow up, and depending on the kids themselves, they may come understand how to properly treat the opposite sex, how to properly behave in public, and what is and what is not proper speech.

For more on this, try viewing Prof. Jenkin's website. You can find it here:

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[ElleyKitten]

>>>The girlfriend is going down on said guy with oral sex.

The girlfriend is going down on said guy's pants. Which, actually, just makes it look stupid. There's more explicit stuff in prime time TV. There's more explicit stuff in R-rated movies. There's more explicit stuff in books. Hell, there's just as explicit stuff in other M-rated games! This whole thing has just been a witch-hunt against Rockstar, and videogames in general, and this grandma, and you, and countless other people have all jumped on the bandwagon. Hope you're having a fun ride.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Well the reason I capitalize some words is to try and put some higher emphasis in them as if I was raising my voice on that word or words out of a speech. Although I do seem to be getting some good feedback on this, so I must be doing something right! :)

Anyway, I see what you mean that only passing one of the three means that this does not classify the game as porn. Fair enough, but that still does not change the fact that the Hot Coffee would have been enough to push the game from an M to an AO rating.

Yes, the content alone does not make the rest of the game bad, I agree, but the content is still rather extreme, especially for an M game. No other M game has graphic sexual acts in it. It may be implied or overheard, but never seen. That's the line that the Hot Coffee crossed, and what has the ESRB and politicians in an uproar.

I am not so much shocked or upset by the content myself, given GTA I almost half expected that, but the fact still remains that GTA gave a false statement in a press release. While they are taking their punches over this, there is no statement from them saying that upset parents who want to return the game for a full refund can do that. Plus, stores that deal in Interactive Entertainment can't take refunds from customers because then the store is handing out cash that they won't be reimbursed for.

This leads to a very sticky situation, and if Rockstar shuffles its feet or tries to tiptoe around it, then they are going to be caught and penalized. I doubt it will be as severe as some might suggest, but something can and will be done, and frankly I say let them have it!

I condemn censorship, but I also condemn bad business practices, which so far Rockstar has been pulling since this whole matter popped up.

Also, if the Hot Coffee were to stand alone without the rest of the GTA game around it, then it would fail those three tests quite easily!

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[DerekLyons]

Possibly the best post on the whole issue - both the mod and the lawsuit. (But I see the /. hivemind is already hard at work making it the victims fault as usual. The idea that folks other than them might have standards is alien and frightening.)

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[JoeSchmoe999]

I have to disagree with your last comment. If "Deep Throat" didn't fail those same three tests in all but one market (Memphis, TN, hand-picked for the job), I can't believe that a cartoon of genital-less people would. Mind you that I can't believe that too many people would purchase this game if the Hot Coffee mod was the only thing in the game so it is, perhaps, a moot point.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Oh for crying out loud, I'm trying to get INTO the video game business! Why on earth would I want to witch hunt the industry that will eventually be giving me my annual salary?

And in case you think that it's just me, the old lady, and a bunch of crazy people, then perhaps I should show you what some of the people who ARE in the industry think!

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3142199

Sure they may not all be in favor of the recent decisions, but if even PENNY ARCADE is miffed at this whole thing, then something is definitly up!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-07- 20&res=l

I particularly find Dave Jaffe's exclamation very interesting. I think I'll go read his blog now.

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[DerekLyons]

Uh, dude, are you insane. Howard Stern, every morning, has some chick moaning away in some sex scene. Daytime soaps have many steamy moments, as do evening shows. Not "hard core", but neither is the sex in the Hot Coffee mod - which, I wonder, have you even seen?

Yes, I've seen it. And nothing on Howard Stern, daytime soaps, or evening shows even remotely approaches it. None of them shows fellatio (as does Hot Coffee), none of them show a man pumping away between the legs of a nude woman.

You're delusional if you think anything shown in the examples you cite compare at all to Hot Coffee.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

I appreciate the compliment. I've come across this a lot, and have been trying to get articles and quotes from people in the industry to help back up my claims. When there's so many people against what I say, half of me wonders if they are right, while the other half wants to continue playing the Devil's Advocate just to see what reactions I get! :)

Too bad that with all I want to say I can't exactly paraphrase it easily. I really need to get into professional or at least amateur writing or something.

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Otaku-Man23]

Just went through the small section of Dave Jaffe (creator of God of War)'s blog and apparently he agrees with you whole heartedly. I am unaware of the "Deep Throat" you speak of (my bad), but I am curious in hearing about it.

You are right that Hot Coffee was definitly not, nor never was, the game's selling point. I also think you may have a point that even when standing alone, the Hot Coffee section probably won't fail those three tests.

The problem I see is that it "might" due to ignorance and judgements made by people in high positions of power. The laws never been so flexible these days if you ask me, but one thing that has maintained rock solid is that video games are not going to take it if they are UNjustly persecuted. Right now, I see that there is a good reason to be mad at Rockstar, and while some think this is all political manipulation, I side with the notion that this is a major f*ck up on the part of Rockstar and that they need to own up to the fact that they made a mistake.

They are in the process of owning up, but there are those in the industry like myself:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/21/commentary/game_ov er/column_gaming/

who think that Rockstar needs to be put in its place in order to give credibility and respect to the GAME INDUSTRY and NOT the politicians! In order to get parents to realize that video games are here to stay and that we take matters like this seriously, something needs to be done, and the ESRB has done its part, the FTC is doing its part, and frankly, the matter in Illinois is more pressing than this anyway!

But that still doesn't let Rockstar off the hook for a mistake like this! Here's what I feel is a proper punishment:

1) Offer full refunds to any upset parental units who want to return the game
2) Accept the game rating from M to AO and offer whatever is necessary to show the ratings change (Check)
3) Accept all returned copies from stores that do not want to carry the game anymore (Check)
4) Make new replacement copies with the code removed to get the M rating back (In Progress)
5) Make sure that no undesirable game content sneaks onto their final product again by changing production measures (Check)
6) Take the respective hit in the stock market (Check)

If they made an announcement saying they would give refunds, then I would see the lawsuit as no longer necessary since refunding the money is plenty of punishment in addition to everything else that Rockstar is doing to fix this mess.

Right now, people are blaming politicians, or old ladies, but no one is flat out saying that Rockstar SCREWED UP! I'm saying it and I'm going to keep saying it because I feel that they DID screw up and big time too!

~Otaku-Man

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[Starsmore]

Right now, people are blaming politicians, or old ladies, but no one is flat out saying that Rockstar SCREWED UP! I'm saying it and I'm going to keep saying it because I feel that they DID screw up and big time too!

Probably because the majority of us don't feel that Rockstar screwed up. This is unused content. Unused content is on every game disc in existence; as people have said previous in this thread and others, it's far easier (and cost-effective) to remove unused content (levels, minigames, etc) from the game, but leave it on the disc, locked away.

What Rockstar did is no worse than a film editor cutting out a raunchy scene from a movie, and leaving it on the cutting room floor. Yeah, people found the minigame, but that's akin to breaking into the storage room of the editing facility and stealing the unused film footage.

If this is your stance on Rockstar, where's your stance on God of War, with it's blantant sex minigame at the end of the first stage? I don't have ready access to the ratings of both games, but I bet you they are the same, and close to it.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[tepp]

1) Offer full refunds to any upset parental units who want to return the game

That's suicide for Rockstar.

There are millions of copies of GTA:SA out there.

Many people have played, and finished this game.

If GTA were to offer a recall, for cash, many people would return it just because they're done with the game and want their money back to spend it on another game... not the censored GTA, cause they're done with the game.

No, Rockstar needs to offer a trade, so an old M rated versin of GTA can be returned for the code-cleansed version. Only then will the truely "upset" return their games, and not people motivated by getting a free 50$.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[ElleyKitten]

That article was interesting, thank you for posting it. However, it just reinforces my viewpoint that if Rockstar hadn't hidden it, just left it in, it would still have gotten an M rating and there would not have been this big of a controversy. As the article said, God of War had more sex and better nudity, and it still got an M rating. R rated movies have full-frontal, actual people nudity and sex, so why is it a big deal if M rated games have clothed pixilated sex? I just don't get it.

Also, you made a comment about 14 year olds being ok with violence, but sex in games might give them wrong ideas about girls. I'm thinking though that a game with prostitutes (where you can kill her afterwards) would give them worse ideas than a game with consensual, non-professional sex. But that's might just be my crazy opinion.

Re:First the Politics of the situation, now this!

[mink]

You do realize that tea has much more caffeine then coffee right? Also tea comes in decaf.

This may actually be a GOOD lawsuit...

[telstar]

1. Grandma buys adult game for minor
2. Grandma sues industry
3. Court throws case out
4. Precedent is set and fewer people try to do the same

Don't get me wrong ... I think the woman is a total bitch trying to cash in on something that had nothing to do with her ... but here's hoping all she ends up with are steep legal fees as she wastes the court's time, and steps closer and closer to her coffin

Contacting Child Protective Services

[Kylere]

/sarcasm (but not total) on Has someone contacted CPS to have this old biddy arrested yet? My Gods, Do it for the CHILDREN!

Re:Suit leads to email discovery, then the truth .

[leland242]

It would seem to me the truth is something like:

"Hey Fred, check out this sex mini game I just wrote!"

"Wow Barney, that's pretty cool, lets show Wilma, the boss"

"Guys, that's pretty cool, but there is no way we can use that...however I like this texture and this vocal - can we use that somewhere else?"

and so on and so forth...

15 Minutes of Infamy

[mabu]

This isn't about the video game. By now that should be obvious to most people.

This is about some opportunitstic, sleazebag lawyer and an 85-year-old incompetent parental figure trying to make a quick buck, or get their 15 minutes of attention.

The less we talk about this frivolous lawsuit and the losers involved, the better.

Re:15 Minutes of Infamy

[vega80]

I'm wondering how this came about - the idea of an 85-year-old grandma initiating a lawsuit seems somewhat unlikely.. could this law firm put out the word to try to find someone in order to file this lawsuit, and convinced this 85-year-old to be their partner in crime?

Re:15 Minutes of Infamy

[vega80]

The law firm involved, Paskowitz & Associates, has a handy website in case you want to file your class action:

http://www.classactionsonline.com/

Re:15 Minutes of Infamy

[kabocox]

This is about some opportunitstic, sleazebag lawyer and an 85-year-old incompetent parental figure trying to make a quick buck, or get their 15 minutes of attention.

The less we talk about this frivolous lawsuit and the losers involved, the better.

Oh, come on the jokes and stupidity remarks are just too easy on this one. Let them have their fun.

I can't wait for Rockstar to release a really newsbreaking game, the economics of hooking. ;) Heck, they could throw in all this sex stuff and go for the AO rating just so the news folks and wanna be censors will go crazy. I've never played any verison of GTA, but I'm all for Rockstar on this. If I didn't have 2 kids, I'd have atleast rented it by now just to see what the fuss was about.

I let me kids play Zelda. What family values does that show my kids? It's o.k. to open any one's front door and open all their treasure chests and break their pots. (God forbid if they have poor chickens.) It's also o.k. to run around with a sword and hitting endangered monsters uh um animals for their rupees or heart containers.

Let's face video games isn't the place to our kids to learn common sense or moral values. ;) (Well, atleast in Zelda you generally use a weapon and don't just jump on their heads.)

This reminds me...

[coldcite]

...of a story I readed some time ago in the Euro-WoW forums, about a swedish guy who bought the game, then went to a consumer-defender TV program because of the "secret montly fees", a new form of scam populating today videogames (according to the host). I find amusing this kind of stories about consumers complaining about "conditions" clearly stated.

Disgusted

[Tachikoma]

Some people in this thread have the audacity to say that this is, in fact, grannies fault.
Clearly this is Take-two's fault and Rockstars, they are to blame for this. This is not something some one is scapegoating, this is ligit and they will loose to grandma.

Did you not read the article? Rock* was physically there, and they engaged in misleading and deceptive practices and coerced her into buying it. I believe she was actually held at knife point...
They used imtimidation, they threatened her life!! Besides, game ratings are not to be taken serious....they're more like suggestions as opposed to restrictions of age.
They really mean "hey, MAYBE you want to wait. ah screw it, BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME you'll win a car...

where was I going with this...

oh yeah its rockstars fault, not helpless granny. I've been saying this for so long, kids are innocent until corrupted by an EVIL corporation.
like microsoft ;)

I would like to take this time to announce my lawsuit against Rockstar (all the cool kids are suing them these days)
(ahem) Rockstar engaged in misleading and deceptive practices that led me to buying a soda at lunch today. I have since spilled that soda on my pants, and it grieved me so. I once saw a character in GTA:SA drink a beverage, which led me to my soda-purchasing ways. Cleary they are to blame. I want $85 million for damages, $14 for fun, and $7 million in grievances. We can settle out of court for a free copy of GTA:SA and beer money. PC version.

And I mean real beer money. No $12 for a 30 pack of 'stones. And certainly no fake money. oh yea cash for dry-cleaning.

Re:Disgusted

[mink]

First, your return to store was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be a child for the ESRB to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the ESRB is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to the the retail world, Miss Cohen.

Wont someone think of the parents!

[CheechWizz]

I bought the AO rated Grand theft horror only to find I was misled by Rockstar.

According to the ESRB site a AO rated game is supposed to contain: "prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity"
Well I got plenty of violence but in the nudity department, the only thing I got that came close was some fully clothed dry humping.
This is an outrage! I'm so sueing the caniving bastards.

Seriously tough, this whole thing is starting to look like the whole "comic code" thing from the '50's..(you can read more about it here: http://www.dereksantos.com/comicpage/presilver.htm l)
We may be laughing the whole thing off now but just wait until the smackdown comes ..

psst

[BlackCobra43]

Matters like this are very important to me, and video game companies like Rockstar need to know that even though they can get away with a lot in a game, they have to understand that censorship and good business practices are NOT one in the same!

Moreover, they have to understand that censorship and good business practices DON'T ACTUALLY GO TOGETHER. Who the hell cares about ratings ? This grandma obviously didn't. Why should R*? Rampant hypocrisy is all this is.

Re:psst

[Otaku-Man23]

Rampant hypocrisy you say? If you think THIS is bad, you should see what they have to say over in the politics section with the Hilary Clinton and Rockstar news. Fascinating stuff, really!

Fact is that people need to understand that the meausres being imposed on Rockstar, and the lawsuits themselves, are not being founded on the grounds of censorship. They are being founded on the grounds of potential fraud, and frnakly I think they have a good case going for them. However, people get up in arms and think that "OH SCREW IT" or "OH THIS ISN'T IMPORTANT" and all that jazz. However, I take a more personal stake in all this because if I'm going to go into the industry, it helps to know what certain actions will result in certain conssequences.

Surely you don't think that Rockstar should get away scott free for leaving that content on the disc? Someone left it on there, by accident or on purpose, but one way or another someone has to be fired! What's more, if it was left on purpose, then it puts a negative spin on ALL games now doesn't it!? Will people trust ANY game if they know that companies can go under the radar of their own self regulations?

If those kinds of sentiments become strong enough, then government legislation can come as well and THAT brings about censorship which I detest.

So to make sure that doesn't happen, something has to be done with Rockstar, and we are merely sitting back and watching it from afar. With great interest, yes, but still from afar!

~Otaku-Man

The American Way

[JoeFaust]

Ahh, legal profiteering at its finest.

Where's a reindeer when you need one?

Grand Theft

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?

Maybe not, but the name of the game - "Grand Theft Auto" - will save them. It's going to be hard to argue that the Hot Coffee scene harms her grandson more than grandly thieving autos does.

Incidentally, I'd like to see the parents who cluelessly bought these for their kids get busted for giving porn to a minor.

Did she...

[Lars T.]

... accidently spill it in her lap?

Re:Wow, PARENTS are fools

[sweetwayne]

Actually, the video clip I saw of the mod does have partial nudity, but no genitalia. That's beside the point, however. The problem here is not the rules and regulations governing video game/move/music or whatever-other-media's content. The problem lies in parents who shirk their responsibility to determine for themselves what they will and will not allow their children to view. Just like this grandmother who admitted she bought the game for her 14 year old grandson. The fucking nerve she has now filing suit against the game makers! Parents who care what their kids see and hear have no excuses, thanks to the available tools. The content ratings(at least for movies, television and games) all list exactly what potentially objectionable content is contained in it, and music at least has an explicit lyrics label. Check up on what they do on the internet. Get informed and then get involved in your kid's lives, already!

Damn that hidden content!!!!

[bigbigbison]

In that case, I'm going to sue Disney because the copy of the Rescuers I bought has nudity in it! and its rated G! I don't care if they recalled it when they found out, Rockstar recalled GTA:VC and they are getting sued!

Re:Damn that hidden content!!!!

[Tachikoma]

Hey that reminds me that in "The little Mermaid"
The preist that marries them in the end pop's a boner when they walk up to him.

Seriously, the short little dude, he's in the bottom right corner, its hard to notice unless someone points it out to you. Maybe he's the king or something, SOME LITTLE guy...i forget the characters.

plus i think thats the movie with the castle shaped like a penis...I forget

Re:Wow, PARENTS are fools

[wheany]

Without installing a nude patch, both characters have clothes on.

Not to put too fine a point on it ...

[twilight30]

... but where can I find a copy of GTA:SA for sale now in Toronto, then?

Since news of this story broke all copies have gone up the spout here in Canada.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Caiwyn]

I wish I had a mod point. But more than that, I wish I could shake your hand. Nice to see some logic here rather than the usual knee-jerk "fight the man" attitudes.

Throwing you on the friends list for that comment alone may be a little hasty, but I'm doing it anyway.

Rockstar is Screwed

[ThePepe]

It seems to me that Rockstar have all but completely screwed themselves by so quickly caving in and re-rating the game. They have now effectively admitted that GTA:SA should have been sold as 'AO' from the start and opened themselves to just these kinds of attacks.

The questions of who the game is actually appropriate for and whether the content should have been removed is now all but moot. Obviously, if this woman is so concerned with what her grandson plays she shouldn't have purchased the game for him in the first place, but it will be awfully easy for everyone to say 'Well yeah I bought a Mature +17 game for my [insert young person] but I never would have if it had been rated Adults Only.'

Re:Rockstar is Screwed

[iainl]

Rockstar haven't folded at all. It's the ESRB that changed the rating, as a slap on the wrist for not disclosing the scene during the rating process (you don't think the ESRB actually plays any of these games, rather than watches vids of the salient bits, do you?)

Re:Rockstar is Screwed

[ThePepe]

Ahh yes that is quite true. With so many companies/people to be angry with on /. in a given day I'm beginning to get confused.

Devil's Advocate

[Botia]

I'm going to play devil's advocate with this one.

I have a two year old son who I let watch PG movies as most of these movies are acceptible in my eyes for him to watch. I do not let him watch PG-13, R, or higher rated movies.

Now from the arguments people are making about the rating, I should be crucified for letting my son watch PG rated movies because he is under the recommended age.

Now while my guess is this lady is suing as she see's an opportunity to make some money, I don't believe the argument that she made the wrong decision based on the rating is valid.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[JedaFlain]

A PG movie is a safe bet for a two-year old though. Even without screening the movie beforehand, you know there's not going to be anything "bad" in it. This would be equivalent to buying an E or E10+ game though. When you buy a game rated M+ called Grand Theft Auto with a string of content descriptors that probably takes up half the back of the box, then give that game to a minor...I don't know what grandma was expecting.

When will they ever understand?

[ScaryFroMan]

FTA: Take Two Interactive initially said the scenes were not part of the retail version of the game but later admitted they were.

Don't you just love how people seem to be misunderstanding and spinning this? The fact is that it never was in the retail version of the game. It was a MODIFIED version of the game. You cannot take a sip of hot coffee without CONSCIOUSLY ALTERING the game.

For that matter, R* never actuatlly said that HC was invented by Hackers and Modders. They said: "In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code."

It isn't entirely true, and it is confusing to anyone who knows little about games and programming, but they DID NOT say that the code was ADDED, just that it was ALTERED.

I think everyone would be much happier if somebody sat down with all these people up in arms and had a good talk with them, explaining what it actually is.

Solution

[bobstevens_took_my_n]

Why not do the same thing every game already has to do... add a note that online play may damage the utility of the ESRB rating.

Just put a similar warning on Action Replays. Problem solved.

Not a Chance

[Irise]

Unfortunatley for granny, she doesn't have much of a case. Rockstar simply created the game and it's content. The rating was handed down by the ESRB, who make sure that there is no confusion as to the content and nature of commercial videogames. They did their job, because The Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas case clearly reads (along with the M rating and the 17+ symbol above it) that the product contains "BLOOD AND GORE, INTENSE VIOLENCE, STRONG LANGUAGE, STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT(in regards to the MOD), and the USE OF DRUGS". Too bad for her, because both Rockstar and the ESRB did their jobs correctly. It's a shame that we now have to constantly defend our media because of this new wave of parents, always ready to blame anyone but themselves for their mistakes.

I'm trying hard to think this through

[Snowspinner]

I'm trying hard to think through grandma's logic here. I'm getting something like, "Well, I was OK when he was having sex with prostitutes in a stolen car and then shooting them to get his money back, but now that I find out you can take out the murder and the car theft, I don't think I can support this game anymore."

Re:I'm trying hard to think this through

[Sigma 7]

I'm trying hard to think through grandma's logic here. I'm getting something like, "Well, I was OK when he was having sex with prostitutes in a stolen car and then shooting them to get his money back, but now that I find out you can take out the murder and the car theft, I don't think I can support this game anymore.

That might not be correct reasoning (assuming that is the case), but her conclusion is correct. The correct reason she no longer wants her grandson to have the product is because it is now marked as adults only for sexual conduct (making the game considered to contain pornographic content, as opposed to just skimpy clothing.)

This is a change from "not recommended for people under 17" to "not permitted for people under 18". While grandma may think the 14 year old is old enough to handle Mature content, this is not the case for Adults Only stuff as it is assumed to be pornographic.

However, nudity is still perfectly acceptable in video games geared toward young children. (The main characters aren't wearing any pants.)

Violence and killing ok? A little sex isn't?

[jsimon12]

I am really confused about this one, Grandma thinks killing is ok, but sex isn't, glad I am not part of that family.

I think the motive for this is payola.

Exactly.

[8086ed]

This is all fucking stupid. If I wanted to see naked people, I'd download some porn. I don't have the desire to watch pixels porking each other. It takes a lot more know-how to mod a game or install a patch than it does to get on Kazaa and download some hardcore stuff.

If this kid would mod his PS2 to watch the Hot Coffee game, I'd say he already has a couple gigs of porn on his computer. Who's gonna get sued for that?

I can't wait to get my Hot Coffee shirt tomorrow.

Thanks parents.

[Soul-Burn666]

A bit offtopic, but I believe it will help show it's POSSIBLE to be good parents, even without that much parental surveillance.

At the time of events decipted below, both of my parents were working full time. Mom 9to5 and dad from 11to9 extended hours, so I was not under parental surveillance for many hours.

I've been playing video games since I remember myself including a lot of extremely violent / objectional games. Throughout my life, my parents NEVER told me "DON'T PLAY THIS GAME", even though they knew what the content is. (hell my dad finished Doom1 on nightmare, and he was over 45 at the time)
The only thing they did tell me is to know the difference between REALITY and FANTASY. They couldn't stress it enough that games, movies and hell they even refered to pornography are NOT the same as real life.

When I got to age 13 or so, my mom handed me a sexual education book (which I only skimmed thru cuz I knew almost everything before). She then said: "I can't stop you from having sex, when you're ready, but please, think about what you are doing and use protection."
Same with alocohol/tobacco, they said: "We can't stop you from trying, but understand what you are getting into". They explained how bad it can be and specifically for drugs.
I drink alcohol freely, but I haven't even tried cigs or drugs, they just don't attract me since I know how addictive it can be, without even being so "fun".

And it's not like they weren't protective. The first time I went to friends who lived far away alone, they bombarded me with questions. This is because they know actual people can affect me badly. They know people can influence me to do drugs or crimes. This is ofcourse because it is out of their hands.
However, they knew I was smart enough to make the difference between reality and fantasy and gave me a free hand in choosing games to play.

Parents can be smart. Even though they don't know exactly what I do or when, they can be smart and fight the problems by EXPOSING me to all that and showing me through the dangers.
Again, my parents didn't mind me playing violent games and I don't think they cared if i'd watch porn (Tho they never caught me ^_^). They just explained why I shouldn't be influenced by it. Straight to the point, reality is different than games/movies.

Startling revelation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break this to ya, kid. Your parents are cyborgs.

Give the man a +5 / insightful

[Savantissimo]

This matches my own observations in Texas and Georgia.

How many people who own the game are offended?

[defstro]

I wonder how many adults who bought the game for themselves are offended by the Hot Coffee mod?

I just don't get it...

[Chimp_On_Stilts]

One thing I just don't get is this. The game features violence left and right. You can blow away cops, hookers, random pedestrians. You can DRIVE OVER people for FUN. You can engage in all the wanton destruction and mayhem you could desire and parents are fine with their kids being exposed to it all. But the minute there might be a little sex in the game parents FLIP THE FUCK OUT. Where the fuck are the priorities of the average parent? ... Then again, upon thinking about it a little more I suppose its understandable. After all, one day their kids might be mowing down pedestrians with an assault rifle, but they'll never have sexual experiences. Nope. Never. God damn I hate stupid people. (And let it be noted that, despite the first paragraph, I have nothing against violent games. In fact, I'm off to play Battlefield 2 right now.)

Re:I just don't get it...

[Chimp_On_Stilts]

Sorry about the formatting, I always forget to change it from HTML to "Plain Old Text".

A relation?

[Taulin]

What is the deal with old women and hot coffee? In the end, they always end up sueing someone when the two come together.

WTF?

[hypnoticstoat]

I dont know what the law is in America but in England if you buy an 18 rated video for an underage child you can be prosecuted however the same doesn't apply to videogames. Maybe they should apply this philosophy to games as well then it might make idiots like this stop and think what their buying for little Johnny instead of just buying it then getting all offended when little Johnny takes great pleasure in beating the brains out of a hooker. Seriously thought its not Rockstars fault that this woman was to thick to read the age rating that is plainly displayed on the packaging. Rockstar should take her aside and slap her with a copy of the game repeating "Check the age ratingbefore you buy, check the age rating before you buy." until she gets the idea. If this doesn't just get thrown out then it could set a very dangerous precedent leading to companies dumbing down and over censoring games because they are to afraid of the finacial repurcusions of offending Grandma Perkins, I dont know about you but I'm not to keen to play "Cotton Wool Wrapped Fluffy Cloud Simulator 3." . We are indeed living in very sad times.

I say...

[Frodo Crockett]

Fuck Granny, and the horse she road in on! Even someone as someone who was raised on "murder simulators" like Doom and Castle Wolfenstein, I wouldn't by a fourteen year old a copy of GTA.

Harmful influence on minors

[Alsee]

In related news her 14 year old grandson has been arrested for stealing cars, running over police, and beating hookers to death with Giant Purple Dildos.

-

Banned in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/game-over/2005 /07/29/1122144013611.html

Maybe Stupid but likley.

[LWATCDR]

"In any case, a jury deciding something about the ESRB rating system based on the MPAA rating system would be stupid."
And jurys never do anything stupid?
Think about it. Rockstar is a game company that is making millions selling games about hookers, drugs, and stealing cars to kids. Do not try and claim they are not marketing to kids any more than tobacco companies "didn't". Right or wrong a jury is very likely to slap them so hard it will make there head spin.

Re:Maybe Stupid but likley.

[Mornelithe]

I didn't say juries don't do stupid things. I fully expect that a ruling like that could happen, and it'd be ridiculous.

However, can you explain exactly how they're marketing to kids? I thought the quintessential gaming demographic these days was males of age 18 - 30, so presumably they're marketing to those people.

I've seen the commercial; it's full of explosions, gunfire, rock music and gratuitous-badass-walking-scenes. It looks like a typical R-rated, summer blockbuster action movie. Are all of those marketed at little kids, too? Let's fine all the movie studios.

Much of the American public may not have caught on to the fact that video games are not strictly for children anymore, just like they still think that "animation is for kids," and would never consider watching anime. However, that doesn't mean that Rockstar or other game companies are marketing towards kids, simply because they produce video games.

And regardless of all that, in this case the grandmother is saying that a game about hookers, drugs, stealing cars and shooting cops is fine for her 14-year-old kid, otherwise she wouldn't have bought it, right? Because that would make her negligent, considering it's rated as unacceptable for people under 17. Is the tobacco company responsible if you buy your own children cigarettes?

If anyone has the Internet...

[SSSSSmokey]

They already have unlimited access to real porn. Stopping them from seeing it GTA isn't going to do anything, and making a big deal about it is only going to get people to want to see it for themselves.