FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute

kukyfrope writes "The FTC and Rockstar/Take-Two have reached a settlement surrounding the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas that will serve to prevent future incidents. The FTC has stated that Rockstar and Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games, or face an $11,000 fine per violation if undisclosed content is discovered. 'Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

Comments

$11,000 per item???

[spentrent]

Wow, that's not even a slap on the wrist! I would budget 30 Hot Coffee type mods in the next GTA if I were Rockstar.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a slap on the wrist because Rockstar knows that the FTC has no authority here. But Rockstar also fears that Congress could get involved and give them authority (unconstitutionally, IMHO). So they both saved face by reaching this agreement. Not surprising considering the circumstances. The FTC wins beause they appear to have stopped smut in games, and Rockstar wins because they haven't brought about videogame regulation.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[redkazuo]

However, Take-Two reported losing $24.5 million. This is very odd. Of course this story lacks nice definitions of what "items" are, so it could mean something more than just "11000 for each discovered mini game" or whatever first comes to mind.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[geekoid]

Every shipped disk would be a violation.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[mikalveli]

No you don't understand. You see, the guys at the FTC were angry because they have never experienced a hot coffee scene themselves. So, Rockstar hired a few hot coffee girls at $11,000 per "item" and sent them over. A few hours later everything is fine.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[jrockway]

> Every shipped disk would be a violation.

I think Eric Idle sums it up best: "Fuck you very much, the FCC, for proving that free speech just isn't free." (He was fined for saying "fuck" on the radio, but it's the same idea.)

Also, how exactly can the federal government make a law that makes it illegal to say "fuck" or to not have your video game rated? The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". When you charge a fine for speech, that abridges the freedom, methinks.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[soft_guy]

When you charge a fine for speech, that abridges the freedom, methinks.

You make the mistake in thinking that the constitution of the united states actually is worth the parchment it is printed on. The US has not been a free country for a very very long time (if ever).

Re:$11,000 per item???

[trentblase]

I bet you could find a black-market buyer for the original signed copy of the constitution willing to pay millions at least!

Re:$11,000 per item???

[dugjohnson]

Is it that they chose not to have it rated, or that they didn't disclose things that would have changed the rating? I understood the latter, and it is the job of the FTC (not the FCC...there's your radio and public airwaves) to make sure that things are as advertised. If they chose not to be rated, then the FTC wouldn't have been involved, as I understand it.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[networkBoy]

In reality though, RockStar could simply not have the game rated.
-nB

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Basehart]

Depends what you mean by "free".

If nobody else gave a fuck about the word fuck you could shout it out at the top of your voice in your local Baskin Robbins on a Saturday morning and people would clap, but the fact is there are lots of folks out there who think "swear" words are evil for some reason, and unfortunately for us sinners most of them are very powerful, with friends in very very high places.

Needless to say I think that's total bullshit, but there again I don't go to church and pray to God so I don't know what it's like to have my sense of reality fatally flawed.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[soft_guy]

Freedom doesn't mean anything unless it means the freedom for people you don't like to do thinks you don't approve of.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Sylver Dragon]

The reason that they can do it is that We The People let them. We accepted the argument that there are reasonable limits on free speech. Some of this is probably valid, and some of it is spurious. For exmaple, truth in advertising laws. While they are technically an abridgement of speech, it is probably a good idea. The whole idea of cavet emptor looks great on paper, but it fails in that our society has far too much knowledge for any one person to make a reasonable, informed decision in every situation. While it is possible for people to get reasonable information, we would spend so much time doing research, nothing would ever be accomplished. Also, lies in advertising do not serve a valid purpose and can lead to harm. If you look at some of the stuff which has been advertised in the past as health remedies, it becomes clear why society accepted such constraints on free speech. From this follows the claim that commercial speech is not as protected as non-commercial speech, which is the accepted view in US courts. This isn't so bad, there is a distinct line of "protected" vs. "non-protected" speech and the type of speech which is constrained does not serve a valid purpose in society.
However, rather than stop this at just commercial speech, we let it go one step further. Consider the ever popular example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. In this case we are trying to create an artifical area of "unsafe" speech. This is a debateable step. On one hand, the speech is likely to cause harm, assuming people stampede; on the other, if there really is a fire, I would hope someone would be kind enough to inform everyone of the danger, i.e., yell, "fire!" So, now we have a form of speech, which does not have a clear dividing line of when it's ok and when it's not; and there is the potential that the speech will be useful to society. In the end, the people accepted that this sort of thing should be decided after the fact. Again, this is probably not a horrible way to deal with the situation, we have simply criminalized putting people in danger needlessly. The downside of this is that we are left facing the possibility that anything we say may get dragged into a grey area and we could end up in jail for breaking a not well defined law.
The last piece of the puzzle to "how we ended up here" is when politicians realized that the people would accept just about any argument, as long as it was framed as a way to protect children. The argument was made that certain types of speech are harmful to children. Because of an unwillingness by the people to say, "no" to anything to protect the children the FCC was given the power to censor speech ad hoc and since we had already accepted the argument that speech could be determined to be harmful after the fact, this expansion was quite natural. And, unsuprisingly, with the prevelence of Christianity and their morals in our government and society, this ability has been used to censor anything that violates normal Christian mores. The Janet Jackson flashing incident is a good example of this. A single nipple causes an uproar and fines, while the standard violance in primetime television doesn't even cause comment.
In order for this type of censorship to stop, two things need to happen:

1. The US people need to quit the "protect the children" habit. As a people we need to actually inspect the claims put out by politicans and groups pushing more restrictive laws, even when they claim that it will "protect children."
2. Roll back the criminalizing of any private speech. Go ahead, yell, "fire" in a crowded theater, you won't be fined or arrested. On the other hand, you are directly responsible for a bunch of people getting hurt/killed; your ass will probably be sued into abject poverty. Nothing about free speech absolves you of the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Of course, the chance of that happening is probably so low as to be negative.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[IAmSwiftness]

Can someone explain to me how exactly the FCC has ANY authority here? I was under the impression that the FCCs power extends only to broadcasts . . . that is, it doesn't apply to cable television, movies aired in cinemas, and, of course, video games (unless of course those video games are broadcast somehow). How did something like this happen with the FCC being involved? I don't at all understand it . . .

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Anonymous Coward]

How about because it WAS funny?

Re:$11,000 per item???

[enrgeeman]

FTC != FCC

Re:$11,000 per item???

[yiantsbro]

No, the constitution is worthless---it's the Dec. of Ind. that has the map...

Re:$11,000 per item???

[mikalveli]

How the FUCK was this comment rated funny?

I guess you were one of the FTC people that didn't get a go with one of the hot coffee chicks.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[IAmSwiftness]

Ever wish you could delete a post you made? I do right now :-/ Thanks for enlightening me, though :-)

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Chowderbags]

Except that Wal-Mart, and very likely most other stores wouldn't carry the game. Although this becomes more and more moot as the means of distribution switches away from the physical and more and more over the internet (ala Steam and the Wii's back catalogue).

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Xyrus]

So let me get this straight...a game that allows you to shoot people in the head at point-blank range, bounce them of your car, or bludgeon them to death is getting reemed for having a little sex thrown in?

It's good to know we got our priorities in order :P

~X~

Re:$11,000 per item???

[PunkOfLinux]

To my understanding, I believe that the Hot Coffee 'mod' wasn't supposed to see the light of day... in fact, if I remember correctly, it required some ability to edit save files... which is hard as hell, if you've never tried. Anyway, I think what happened was that R* originally put it in, but thought, "Hm, this a bit too much," so, they rewrote a bit of code, the whole thing's still there, but it's not readily accessible. In other words, in my opinion, they were doing the right (albeit lazy) thing by at the very least blocking it in some way.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Firehed]

That's also the one that tells us to revolt if we're being oppressed, as was so kindly indicated my Mr. Cage.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[jaseparlo]

But, but, but...if we don't teach our good Christian children to enjoy violence, who will we send to undertake our crusades against pagans and Muslims for us? We have to protect them from fornication though, as long as they are pure in heart and mind, they can break the Ten Commandments any time they feel like it...

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Tekzel]

You make the mistake in thinking that the constitution of the united states actually is worth the parchment it is printed on. The US has not been a free country for a very very long time (if ever).

Dont be ridiculous. Of course the US is a free country, you sound like some wack job. I would love to hear your definition of free. Would it be an anarchic society with no laws and no police? You are free to do ANYTHING you want, even rape and kill your neighbor? Would that be the free society you want to live in? If so, then better go somewhere and start it, because my guess is the majority of us want to strike a balance between freedom and order. Given a lawless society and humans, you would not have some socialist utopia, you would have a terrible meat grinder of a society. We need some sort of system of laws to keep us from killing each other. And to the topic at hand, parents should have the right to decide what their kids are exposed to. If companies can't police themselves (and do you think they can or will?), the government will have to do it. I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want my kid playing GTA any more than I would want them watching hard core porn or drinking. Its just as destructive to a young impressionable mind in my opinion. You are free to disagree, and let your kids play GTA. You just have to buy it FOR them. Thank goodness for a free country.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[plague3106]

Its just as destructive to a young impressionable mind in my opinion.

Nevermind that your opinion is in direct conflict with research studies. That doesn't suprise me, you probably believe an invisible man created you from nothing and gets angry if you have sex before marriage. Or if you choose to use your free will and not show him any love or respect.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[Tekzel]

Nevermind that your opinion is in direct conflict with research studies. That doesn't suprise me, you probably believe an invisible man created you from nothing and gets angry if you have sex before marriage. Or if you choose to use your free will and not show him any love or respect.

Please, whenever someone mentions "the studies" they are just saying they have no idea what they are talking about. You can prove anything you want if you "perform studies" enough.

And no, great job assuming, and wrongly. I am, in fact, an Athiest. So no invisible guys here.

Re:$11,000 per item???

[trentblase]

"During the daytime, pages one and four of the document are displayed in a bullet-proof case. The case contains helium and water vapor to preserve the paper's quality. At night, the pages are lowered into a vault, behind five-ton doors that are designed to withstand a nuclear explosion." That's a lot to go through for a worthless piece of paper. I reiterate my statement that SOMEONE would be willing to pay big bucks for it.

Wow, $11,000

[Nos.]

I wonder how many extra sales Rockstar generated because of the whole Hot Coffee thing. Probably enough to conver that fine several times over. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrant to me.

Re:Wow, $11,000

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> Doesn't seem like much of a deterrant to me.

$11,000 is pretty cheap for that kind of advertising. I'd advise a Hot Grits mod for the next GTA title.

Re:Wow, $11,000

[art-boy]

Actually according to TFA:

According to Take-Two, the publisher has already incurred a loss of $24.5 million due to the "Hot Coffee" scandal, subsequent re-rating of San Andreas, and removal of the game from most retailers' shelves (until it was replaced with the M-rated version).

Re:Wow, $11,000

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't people RTFA before posting?
From TFA:
to clearly and prominently disclose on product packaging and in any promotion or advertisement for electronic games, content relevant to the rating, unless that content had been disclosed sufficiently in prior submissions to the rating authority

The sale of each disk that did not say WARNING: NON-RATED 'HOT COFFIE' SCENES INCLUDED on the package would be a violation

Re:Wow, $11,000

[Jeremy Erwin]

And you want them to be deterred? Why?

Re:Wow, $11,000

[jinxidoru]

I wonder how many extra sales Rockstar generated because of the whole Hot Coffee thing. Probably enough to conver that fine several times over.

Actually, I would venture to say that they lost a lot of money on this whole Hot Coffee thing. While yes, it did generate publicity, it also caused many stores to pull the game off the shelf. As far as I was aware, after the Hot Coffee thing popped up, Software Etc--or are they called Electronics Boutique--no longer stocked the game. That is a HUGE hit to sales. I'm also pretty sure that Walmart pulled it from the shelves as well (I could be wrong on that). No amount of publicity makes up for the distribution network being completely pulled out from under their feet.

Re:Wow, $11,000

[HappyDrgn]

Usually I'll wait till these types of games drop in price before buying them. The day of the "Hot Coffee" news I immediately bought the game. This was mostly for two reasons, firstly I was not sure if they where going to be able to sell the game anymore, and secondly if they continued to sell it they might be forced to sell a crippled version. I'm sure others did the same. They did not get an extra sale from me, but they did get an extra $10-20.

Re:Wow, $11,000

[StikyPad]

I'm pretty sure getting an AO rating, and getting yanked from the shelves of many major retailers cost more sales than it earned through publicity. Regardless, it would take a lot of sales to offset the ~50% drop in Take Two's stock price.

Wow...

[DragonPup]

...what a total slap on the wrist. Not that I am saying Rockstar should be fined or anything, but they did make out like a bandit there.

Re:Wow...

[SatanicPuppy]

I think it's pretty much a fair judgement. Sure the content was there, but they didn't have any intention of making it widely available. Additionally, even though it was made available, no one accidentally stumbled across it...you had to download a patch, install it, and then play through the game to that point.

Beyond that, the game was rated M, which is the rating for 17+, which is the same age range as NC-17 which is the adult film category in the states.

It's hard to see, given all those factors, how it would be possible for them to crack down hard on the game. The superbowl thing was different, because they slipped some (arguably) adult content into an all-ages broadcast.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

They made out like a bandit because they made a good game, not because they were pushing pr0n on kids. Saying they made out like a bandit sounds like they did something illegal and got away with it when in fact they did not.

Where are the parents when the kids are on the internet downloading the patch needed to see the hot coffee mod? I don't care what 'content' is on the disc. Until you download something from the internet, it's not in the game.

    I repeat: Where are the parents when their kids are on the internet downloading hot coffee? There are a lot worse things to download than the hot coffee patch.

Re:Wow...

[IAmTheDave]

Beyond that, the game was rated M, which is the rating for 17+, which is the same age range as NC-17 which is the adult film category in the states.

Which is the entire issue. If it's 17+, and someone sells it to a minor, fine the seller, just like cigarettes.

I mean, WTF else does someone want? Oh, right, the govn't to provide full time parenting for them, so they don't have to do it themselves.

Re:Wow...

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, technically, and I don't agree with this, but there is a higher level of game content that there is for movie content (which sucks hard. I've never felt my mind sprain from playing a video game, but there are some movies I wish to god I could unwatch.), so they could say, "If this content was known, this would have been rated AO OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN"...And beyond that, it's supposed to say underneath the rating the stuff that justifies the rating, like "Violence, Language, Boobies" or something, and since it didn't say "Strong Sexual Content" there is the possibility that some stupid parent who is okay with violence but not sex bought the game for the kid and freaked out later.

Re:Wow...

[Lord Kano]

Beyond that, the game was rated M, which is the rating for 17+, which is the same age range as NC-17 which is the adult film category in the states.

No where near.

Adult films do not receive MPAA ratings. In the 1970s when X was used to denote films that were not for children, the adult films industry began to self-impose the X rating upon their films. XXX was later used to specify films that contained explicit sexual content. Namely graphic scenes of penetration and "money shots".

LK

Re:Wow...

[KDR_11k]

I thought it DID say "strong sexual content"?

Re:Wow...

[penguinstorm]

I'm not sure I'd count the Superbowl as adult content. I was quite young when I caught sight of my first bare breats.

Damn tasty too.

Re:Wow...

[Red Flayer]

It's hard to see, given all those factors, how it would be possible for them to crack down hard on the game. The superbowl thing was different, because they slipped some (arguably) adult content into an all-ages broadcast.

(emphasis mine)

That's the difference. Broadcast. Or, with movies, one could argue that it's in a public place. Videogames are consumed/viewed in a private place -- and if in public, it's the person doing the broadcast, not the creator of the content, that should be held liable.

Re:Wow...

[Ced_Ex]

But wasn't that breast your mom's?

Suddenly, I feel comforted and dirty at the same time.

Re:Wow...

[pla]

...what a total slap on the wrist.

A slap on the wrist? For what??? Daring to not break the law?

Get some perspective here, people! Rockstar did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And even if you give two squirts of a rat's ass about what the goddamned Christian Wrong have to say on the matter - This "content" didn't even exist in the game, as released - It took out-of-game action on the part of the player to make the scene accessible.


Time to get the FCC back to just spectrum allocation rather than blatant censorship; the FTC back to protecting consumers from exploding cellphones rather than blatant censorship; And to burn the PTC and Jackoff Thompson at the motherfucking stake!


And yes, I used some four-letter words above - The fact that we consider censorship even remotely acceptible, even if only with a token punishment, seriously pushes a few of my buttons. We don't need to debate the content, or the ease of accessing it, or the fines, or the technical authority to impose such fines. We need to get each and every last one of these worthless trips who would tell us what we can and can't see/say/read/write/hear/think/feel up against the wall - while we need to do it while we still have the capacity to have such thoughts!

Re:Wow...

[foamrotreturns]

No, the ESRB rating system does not compare in parallel to the MPAA rating system. M != NC-17 Ao (Adults Only) is approximately equal to NC-17 in the way they judge it. M is more like R.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post sums up my thoughts exactly. This whole debacle is simply a non-issue that's being blown WAY out of proportion for some reason.

So, if I come up with a patch that changes the title screen in Disney/Pixar's new Cars game to a JPG of some porn scene, is Disney in trouble?? Utterly ridiculous...

Re:Wow...

[plague3106]

Beyond that, the game was rated M, which is the rating for 17+, which is the same age range as NC-17 which is the adult film category in the states.

It goes beyond that; the next highest rating is AO, which I believe means that anyone 18+ can buy it. Are 17yr olds really that different than 18 yr olds?

If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[DrXym]

featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Ant P.]

I'd pay $11,000 to see that! Er... the part _after_ the comma...

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Kevin DeGraaf]

If I produce a mod for Solitaire featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire, dumbass. The "Hot Coffee" mod didn't add "mature"-rated content, it just unlocked what was already there (as shipped by Rockstar).

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[joe 155]

"No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire"

That's just because you've not used the mod yet... ; )

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[mmalove]

Only if you are unlocking gay bdsm material preexistant(although locked) in the Windows OS.

I see this kind of like a loose Sarbanes-Oxley for Video Games: we're going to hold you accountable for disclosing information about your video game up front, and ignorance is not an excuse. Fortunately for Rockstar, they got the slap on the wrist this go because the law/court ruling didn't exist up until now.

Someone at Rockstar left the material coded into the game. Now believe me, I've got nothing against seeing breasts, and young boys are going to look for sex whether or not they see it in a video game (hell, so will grown men, go figure) - but if the rating system is going to hold any meaning, and provide an effective means of keeping the government off the game producers' backs for creating enjoyable games that might include mature themes, then we have to expect the game companies to be honest in disclosing the true nature of content in the game. IE, if there's nudity/sex, come out and say it. Say it loud and clear. Don't curl back and go "oops, thought we took that out, hehe" Because that's the kind of stupid mistake that gets voters worried that they need government crackdowns on entertainment.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[gstoddart]

If I produce a mod for Solitaire ... featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

Only if you can demonstrate your mod merely unlocked the already existing gay BDSM content which was in Solitaire. Otherwise, it's you who distributed the M content and gets in trouble, now Microsoft.

In this case, Rock Star shipped the game with that content present, but disabled. This mod only re-enabled the content, not provided it.

So, if you discover such content in Windows and can release a mod for it, then, be our guest. :-P

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[DrXym]

Well dumbass (two can play at that game), there was no mature content in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. They still got re-rated M with the ESRB because someone produced a mod that made your player naked. Explain that one.

If a game for which there was no offensive content can be re-rated because of a 3rd party mod, then why not Solitaire? Alright, you might say but Solitaire isn't meant to modded. Does that mean that if I can mod a game that I can get it re-rated? A kiddy's painting program for example? Or the Sims?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[dj961]

The nude textures are present in game they're just coverd up by a bra.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Okay - please - explain this to me:

2 games:
One ships with nude base models for characters, and clothing is put on top when the models are generated for display. The nude models are never shown during "normal" gameplay, but someone makes a mod to make all clothing transparent.

The other ships with a blank void where the naughty-bits are, and puts clothes on top, so you never see the blank-void-naughty-bits during gameplay. Someone makes a mod which adds in those naughty-bits.

Now of course you'll say "But game A ships with naughty-bits!". It doesn't matter - to the end user running show_naughty_bits.exe, it's the exact same experience. Out here in the real world, there's no difference. Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Danse]

Now of course you'll say "But game A ships with naughty-bits!". It doesn't matter - to the end user running show_naughty_bits.exe, it's the exact same experience. Out here in the real world, there's no difference. Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?

Exactly. If the user takes an action specifically to modify the game in a way that would violate its rating, then that's the user's fault, not the game developer's fault. If you don't want to see naughty bits, then don't modify the game. If you don't want your kids seeing naughty bits, then don't let them play unsupervised. This crap has gotten way out of hand and is just ridiculous now.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[WhiplashII]

OK - go one further. Every byte of the .gif image files used to create this awful solitaire game will be copied from somewhere else in the solitaire executable. So in other words, the "patch" just takes data already in solitaire and moves it around - and naked pictures appear.

The fact is, all of the "data" is already there (it's only numbers!). Really, we need to judge games on how they run during normal, unmodded play. Mods can do anything, and you can use data in any program for any purpose.

Of course, if I was making games I would just include in the license that you agree that you will not make mods that will adversely effect the games rating - problem solved. (Then when someone does it, they are not your responsiblity.)

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[deficite]

Who's the dumbass here? If you actually read what happened about Oblivion you'd know that Oblivion only got rerated because of the gore. The ESRB did a piss-poor job rating Oblivion and since somebody brought to their attention a nude texture, they looked over the game and found it to contain too much gore to be rated Teen. Don't believe me? Read this: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148897.html

Yeah, they're still getting the nudity descriptor, but I think that was more of a thing to get people to shut up and stop arguing about it. Since the game was going to be rerated anyway, they figured the easiest thing to get the argument on whether the nudity should be accounted for was just to throw a nudity descriptor on it. An appeasement if you will.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Sassinak]

Sadly, so VERY true!

I mean come on... people are complaining because little Johnny (or Jane if she is so inclined) went out on the net, found a discussion group (or a download site) that had this mod in it, downloaded it, installed, it and played it.

I have two problems with this being the fault of Rockstar

1: Where the hell did little Johnny (lets assume he is under age 16 which in most states is just old enough to get a work permit) get the cash for this game in the first place. I would assume that he got it from the parents. And where, might I ask were the parents? (old topic: NOT REAL PARENTS. Just reproductive units)

2: As many have already pointed out. No one seems to be complaining about the fundamental content (i.e.: profanity, killing, assault, theft, etc...) in the game, but good lord, pixelated simulacrum of sex gets these nuts bent out of shape? (no jokes about the possible pun there) Give me a break, sex is something most everyone does and quite a few enjoy (hell, if that was not true, little Johnny and/or Jane would not be an issue). But I believe there are a LOT of laws (societal as well as moral) that prohibit murder, theft, etc...

so nutty!
I am just going to crawl back into my hole. The world has just gotten more scary and I don't want to come out anymore.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[soft_guy]

Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?

Because the job of censoring video games naturally attracts empty headed imbeciles?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[KDR_11k]

I think it shows a fundamental error on the behalf of the ESRB that the game managed to get that T rating in first place. How come they "discover things later"? Unless it's hidden very carefully they should stumble across it during a normal playthrough. Oh, right, the ESRB can't be bothered to actually play the games they are supposed to rate.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[GreyPoopon]

One ships with nude base models for characters, and clothing is put on top when the models are generated for display. The nude models are never shown during "normal" gameplay, but someone makes a mod to make all clothing transparent.

So can you explain to me what possible reason there would be for wasting time designing the graphics on the "naughty bits" in the first place if you never intended for them to be seen? Or did they use real photos as their base material? (I've never played the game)

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I find it far easier to make things like cabinets and furniture (I design houses for a living) fit correctly when I have the exact dimensions of what I'm wrapping. And once the dimensions are there, it's easier to simply say "texturemap skin=flesh" than it is to say "texturemap most_of_skin=flesh texturemap breasts=blackhole"; and even if they did that, what's to stop someone from copying texture/skin over texture/blackhole?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[swv3752]

I don't know about GTA, but I think it was Oblivion where they mapped the male nipples over to the female body. Besides I could see settinga full model just in case you want to add that content in and deciding not to for marketing reasons when you ship the game.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[modecx]

are unlocking gay bdsm material preexistant(although locked) in the Windows OS.

And the functional difference is what again?

I might be thinking about hacking some jerk's head off with an axe while I reluctantly feign a smile and shake hands with him but that dosen't change the fact that the only thing that happened was a handshake.

So what if MS incorporated gay porno into some file hiden in a dark and dank corner of their OS? First you'd have to find out where it was and understand what was going on and then you might have to go to some extraordinary effort to extract that porno. It's entirely possible, if not likely, that a gay fellatio scene is hidden in the help documents to Microsoft Word, or even in this very comment! Furthermore, how would you know that I didn't put it there on purpose, and how would I know that my subconcious put it there without my knowledge?!

You know, I'm confident that with a little time and the right program it would be possible to extract a video of the goatse man right from the binaries of Windows Vista... But does that mean that MS wanted you to experience the power that is goatse? NO. Would that hypothetical goatse video have been put there intentionally? Probably not, but who's to say? Does it really matter how or why it's there? I think not. The only thing that matters is that MS didn't intend to regular users to see a video of a man playing with his giant gaping asshole.

It's just like this game. They didn't intend for people to see that part of the game, and the users had to go to extraordinary lengths (relative to the knowledge and ability of most computer users) to download, extract and install that mod, and then get to the part of the game where the player would experience that hidden content.

p.s. the first one to extract a gay fellatio video from this comment wins a cookie!

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[JPriest]

That is sort of like calling in a bomb threat somewhere and later defending yourself by saying "all the words I used are out there already, I only arranged them differently".

I think deciding if the content is there in the game and the mod unlocked it, or if the content was provided by the mod seems to be the most reasonable place to draw the line.
Not surprisingly, few people on Slashdot seem to agree.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[poot_rootbeer]

Fortunately for Rockstar, they got the slap on the wrist this go because the law/court ruling didn't exist up until now.

The law STILL doesn't exist. Unless you're arguing that Sarbanes-Oxley applies to game publishers, or that the voluntary ESRB rating system carries force of law.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is propietary software, so if your "patch" brings forth the same result, how could you know it was added by the patch or already there?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[buysse]

Beyond that, if you're developing the model, it would make it easier to see places where the model was incorrect (not realistically proportioned) with a skin that looked like a human body.

Some people are way too worried about nudity. Often, the same people who immediately called their congresscritter after the wardrobe malfunction would have no trouble with little Johnny or Jane seeing 24 or CSI or Law and Order: SVU. Personally, I think either of those are more likely to do damage to a kid than a 500ms flash of nipple.

Besides, why does everyone focus on the nudity from the Superbowl incident rather than the violence? (Wouldn't you consider ripping clothing off of someone else to be an act of violence against that person?)

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Touché

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[WhiplashII]

While I think that works for GTA, it doesn't really work for Oblivion. In Oblivion, the models used were hierarcial models, and one of the objects was a "bra". There were no nipples, but obviously a breast shape needed to be included. So someone deletes the "bra" from the model hierarcy, and puts in the male nipple, and viola.

Which is that closer to - my taking random data and putting it into a new form, or GTA unlocking a bad porno? No matter which way you decide, at the very least you have to see that a reasonable person might disagree - and that there is a continuum.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[mmalove]

Well, in a few months spore's going to come out, with claymation models walking around. I give it about 3 seconds you'll find someone makes 1) A convincing nude female, and 2) a gigantic walking penis. That's not EA's fault, you can do the same thing in MS Paint. Today's 3d graphics just give it a new face.

What rockstar did was left pornography on the disk. The modder didn't have to construct anything out of raw data, nor combine two dissimilar models to create something taboo - all they had to do was direct the game engine to the content. I see a pretty clear difference.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Criterion]

But it does matter, as the company that makes the game is responsible for what is on the disk. If there was never any intention of the naughty bits being shown, they should not have been on the disk. The thing is, there was an intention to show them, as topless dancers in a club. JUST THE SAME as there was originally intention to have the hot coffee minigame in GTA. Now, I'm not passing judgement on the game companies, 'cause I like the games (just got home from a friends where we were running vigilante missions in GTA:SA... the tank rocks lol), I'm just saying that there is no need to try and make excuses for the companies. Don't be lazy, keep track of, and clean out unused assets if they're something that could even REMOTELY get you in trouble. Otherwise it's just gonna look like it's hidden content there waiting for a hacker to unlock (as that is a thing that hackers do, by nature).

There is a slippery slope here. What do you think of this.. Say I create a game, hmm, maybe a teletubbie game. Now I can add some encrypted porn files in there, that can't be accessed by the game, don't tell anybody about it and tada! I've got a game rated (as my son says) E, for everyone (see, kids can be brought up to know what they can and can't have.. yes he plays Halo, no he doesn't play GTA... my discretion to allow him what I deem suitable for HIM). Some hacker comes along and finds them, well, guess what? I should be responsible for it.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Chowderbags]

How are two breasts automaticly pornography? Guess what: over half the world has breasts. That's right, every woman (and some really fat men) has a pair of breasts, and guess what: if they take their shirt and bra off, they will be right there. It's not pornography to merely model breasts. If the game did anything further with the breasts, than perhaps you'd have something, but until then, all you've got is a model of a female character having an anatomicly correct torso. So what?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Chowderbags]

My bad, I thought we were still on Oblivion. *shoots self* Ignore the above. :\

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[rk]

"No, because there's no gay BDSM content already in Solitaire, dumbass."

I think it's time for somebody's warm milk and nap.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Anonymous Coward]

So all we need to do is find a few images with the colors we want and rearrange the pixels?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[silvermorph]

would ASCII art count?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Where is someone's son getting XXX-Tele-Humpies-Patch.exe? If a user is required to run a patch, then they

A) Know what it's doing, and

B) Are responsible for their own actions, just as with any other content they obtain out of normal game operation.

The scene was in no way accessible without knowing *exactly* what you were doing. If a kid was able to get away with installing this patch, they were just as capable of downloading porn.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[WhiplashII]

OK, so you disagree with ESRB? They saw Oblivion as another GTA, and changed the rating from T to M because of a mod that really had little to do with Oblivion as it shipped.

I agree that GTA should have been smacked down, from a moral point of view. My problem is that unless the line is drawn at "shipped with active stuff inapropriate to the rating", the line becomes impossible to draw consistently - as happened with Oblivion. Mods can do anything - so I think it is better to admit defeat and say "if you mod it, you are on your own and the providing company is not liable."

I mean come on! There are easier ways to get porn, people!

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Panzergheist]

If Jack Thompson and other uneducated politicians where so inclined to attack Operating Systems, that mod could get Microsoft in trouble. For an example, Bethesda Softworks "Oblivion" recently underwent a ratings change for a user created mod that allowed people to play the game with topless female characters.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[JPriest]

Why must it be so black and white? The ESRB makes judgement calls every day as they decide ratings for games. If the content is provided with the game, it is rated for it. If the content is 100% mod, it is not the fault of the game maker. In cases in between, it is up to the ESRB to make a judgement call.

The problem with saying anything goes so long as modification is required to unlock it, is that there is not a rule that says how difficult the mod must be. To me opening game.ini and changing "adult content=0" to "adult content=1" could be considered a mod. Such a policy could open the door to blatant abuse of the rating system.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the functional difference, in terms of harm to children, between downloading a patch that unlocks something you couldn't otherwise access and downloading a patch that adds additional content? Or, to put it another way, what's the difference between content you cannot access, and the content not existing in the first place?

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Thing 1]

I am just going to crawl back into my hole. The world has just gotten more scary and I don't want to come out anymore.

Then, for them, it's working.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Thing 1]

It wasn't really porno, though. The dude was clothed. It was more like a strip club.

And all the previous versions of the game had the feature where, if you just sat in the car (so you could listen to the hilarious talk radio, of course), a hooker would walk up and jump in. The car would start shaking, with moaning, and your money would start going down, a dollar a second or so. After a bit (the shaking getting faster, then stopping), the hooker would get out. (And then you could kill her and get your money back.)

I really, really don't understand why this is not more offensive to them than getting in on with your girlfriend in the privacy of a house (and not killing her). It's just funny to me, but I can't really wrap my mind around their logic.

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Thing 1]

I completely agree: it is all, and only, numbers. I really enjoyed some of the mods for Quake, only a few of which were pornographic.

I would actually do the opposite of what you suggested: I would make games that could easily be modified (perhaps including some sort of scripting engine in them, even for console games; typing would be difficult but I can envision some sort of input system that used all the controls to efficiently enter words and characters).

Then, using that engine, I would create innocuous games. Like Spore. I wouldn't even need to encourage developers to make inappropriate mods; it will happen regardless of my communications. Perhaps, actually, using your suggestion, since then I'll have put the idea into people's heads while being plausibly deniable about it. (Which, after having typed all this, I realize was your point. So I feel a bit stupid, but I'll post this anyway in case others didn't quite get you...)

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[Anonymous Coward]

>> If I produce a mod for Solitaire ... featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?

>Only if you can demonstrate your mod merely unlocked the already existing gay BDSM content which was in Solitaire. Otherwise, it's you who distributed the M content and gets in trouble, now Microsoft.

I'm not distributing porn, I'm just distributing a simple XOR process that reveals porn hidden in all of Vista's image files!!!!11eleven (Okay, so my XOR operators are kinda large, but they're completely innocent, just look at them...)

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[GreyPoopon]

Often, the same people who immediately called their congresscritter after the wardrobe malfunction would have no trouble with little Johnny or Jane seeing 24 or CSI or Law and Order: SVU. Personally, I think either of those are more likely to do damage to a kid than a 500ms flash of nipple.

Although we're straying a little off-topic here, I think we have a different situation between 24 or CSI or Law and Order: SVU and the Superbowl nipple-flash. Parents have a good idea about what content to expect on the aforementioned TV shows, and most would not let young children watch those shows. However, it is widely accepted that Superbowl programming should be free from such content (family viewing), so you can't blame the parents too much for being shocked. Having said that, however, I think what was far, far worse than the 1/2 second exposure on the Superbowl was the incessant need for the TV News Media to show the whole thing over and over in slow motion. It's like somebody needed to beat them upside the head with a bat and say "we get it already!!"

Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire

[eraserewind]

You may be "technically correct" but you are "actually wrong". People, judges included, aren't monumentally stupid you know? It's only numbers argument is just pedanticism. You may as well say images are just a bunch of colored dots. Or music lyrics just vibrations in the air. Things have a context and people can interpret the context. People[*], once they know the facts, are not a computer program that you can decieve with stupid tricks or simple word games.

[*] well, most people[**]
[**] some anyway

Um...

[rsilvergun]

should the FTC be allowed to levy fines on behalf of a private organization? Why the hell is the FTC even involved, wouldn't this be more a contract dispute? Far as I know, they don't get to regulate games, but maybe it all falls under the same decency laws everything else does.

Re:Um...

[kfg]

. . .maybe it all falls under the same decency laws everything else does.

No, truth in advertising. The rating is a specific claim of suitability. If they had released the game unrated there would be no claim against them.

KFG

Re:Um...

[SonicSpike]

The better question should be "why does the ESRB or the PRMC even exist?" NEITHER are of which Constitutional or a function of the government.

Conservatives try to impose their values upon others via law. Liberals try to impose no values upon others via law.

Libertarians believe that values should be determined by the individual and/or their family, upbringing, religion, etc. Either way, the government SHOULDN'T be involved. Government exists only to secure rights and keep each other from violating each other's rights.

parents - think of the children!

[joe 155]

I really loved the bit about "parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system"... yep, I can see it now...

"yeah, son, you can play this game where you have to sell drugs, have sex with prostitutes, murder policemen and steal their cars... it's all ok; just so long as there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it"

Why did anyone care about this. Not only was it not in the main game it was by far the least offensive thing in the list I just mentioned... I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen

Re:parents - think of the children!

[drinkypoo]

There's even a better argument, though; it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it? It's paid for by publishers, not taxes.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[mctk]

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Don't try to fool me with your logic and reason. Look, joe_155, it's not that GTA would be okay as long as "there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it". Because, my friend, there was no unrealistic computer simulated sex in GTA. Don't you see? That's where the problem is. It's especially a problem if it's not in the game, because then the game cannot be incorrectly rated for content that's not even in the game, but might be if someone chooses to put it there. Is that clear?

Re:parents - think of the children!

[rmadmin]

*clap* I agree completely. I played GTA 3 for about a week. My 8 year old caught me playing one night and he thought it was the coolest thing ever and begged me to play it. I pawned it off at one of those used game stores for $5 the next day. Screw all these laws and fines. Parents that actually give a shit and pay attention to what their kids are doing would yeild better results in my opinion. I really can't see a parent saying "Billy, you're so annoying today, go sit infront of the TV and kill some cops, hookers, blow up some cars, snipe off some people, and quit bugging me already."

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Danse]

There's even a better argument, though; it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it? It's paid for by publishers, not taxes.

Because if the parents can't rely on the ESRB rating, then the ESRB is worthless and we'll end up with government regulation, which is the last thing that the industry wants. That said, I still disagree with their priorities. Heinous acts and all sorts of violence are more ok than sex, or even just seeing a nipple. That's just some messed up thinking right there.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Dunbal]

I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen

      I'd rather my children have sex with dead poli...uhh nevermind...

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, since when did GTA have realistic sex with prostitutes? Hell if thats true I'm picking up the game tonight!

Re:parents - think of the children!

[KarmaMB84]

The position of the FTC is that Rockstar hid content in the game and the ESRB gave it an inaccurate rating which Rockstar put on the game packaging to mislead consumers. If such a thing happens, then the company in question is LYING to the purchaser. I wouldn't call this particular misrating a lie since it wasn't really hidden and it requires modding, but the principle is there.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[FurryFeet]

But that's your choice. Other people will have different uses and standards, stupid as they may seem to you (and stupid as yours may seem to them). The obvious solution is to give everyone good information and let each person make their own choices based on that information.

Rockstar polluted the system by feeding it false info. Hopefully, they won't do it again. That's a Good Thing.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[joe 155]

"Other people will have different uses and standards, stupid as they may seem to you (and stupid as yours may seem to them)"

I don't want to meet these people who think that human reproduction is worse than murder... who would think like that?

Re:parents - think of the children!

[soft_guy]

it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it?

Well, there's this thing that we in the business call "False Advertising"...

Re:parents - think of the children!

[drinkypoo]

I, too, am in the advertising business.

How exactly is it that it would be false advertising? They give the game to the ESRB. ESRB gives them a rating. They put the rating on the package, saying "This game was granted a <whatever> rating by the ESRB". Show me the false advertising.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[soft_guy]

The ESRB claims that they rate games in a consistant manner according to published criteria. If they do not in fact follow their own guidelines and rate things in a capricious manner, then they are not doing what they ADVERTISE that they do. Thus, false advertising. This is precisely the argumen underlying the FTC's actions in this case.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[wonkavader]

..."people who think that human reproduction is worse than murder... who would think like that?"

The people we've been breeding/educting/indoctrinating all these years to vote for corporate stooges.

Get with the program, here, buster. This is a new, better America.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[drinkypoo]

Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about the game publisher.

However, the ESRB does precisely what they said they would do. They never claimed that their testing process involved going in with a hex editor and trying to unlock things that you can't normally access in-game...

Re:parents - think of the children!

[soft_guy]

The game publisher is a member of the ESRB. What you are claiming is that by a slight of hand (i.e. using technicalities to claim that the publisher is responsible for X and the ESRB is responsible for Y, thus creating a loophole to commit fraud), the game publisher can ship an AO game rated as M. And if you think of it in that manner, then it is obviously not a legitimate thing to do.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[FurryFeet]

I happen to agree with you on the sex vs. murder issue. I also happen to not expect the whole world to conform to my views.

Still, you haven't told me why you think that Rockstar was justified in hiding content from the ESRB. Yo do, don't you? Because that's what we're discussing.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[joe 155]

I'm not so much saying that it was justified to hide it from the ESRB... I'm just saying that whether or not the ESRB knew or not is completely irrelevent because of the content already in the game. Besides the Hot Coffee thing wasn't "in the game"... it was like "if you alter the way the programe works then you can get to something you were never meant to..."

Don't get me wrong, not deleting it is rather sloppy work from the programmers - not getting rid of code that doesn't go anywhere - but for the most part it does seem to be standard practice...

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, that sounds like what my sister would do... (she bought my nephew GTA: VC when he was 10 and didn't care about the violence, cop killing, stealing cars, etc. -- she had a fucking fit when I told her about the whores...)

Re:parents - think of the children!

[ScrewMaster]

... there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it

Exactly, which is why I'm all for including realistic computer simulated sex in it. Why should I spend all this money on the latest video card if I'm not going to get realistic sex?

Granted, this is Slashdot, where anything resembling sex is good.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[westlake]

Why did anyone care about this. Not only was it not in the main game it was by far the least offensive thing in the list I just mentioned... I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen>

Several reasons:

1 Rockstar has a history of pushing the limits of public tolerance. The gamer may have disagreed. But the gamer wasn't living in Little Haiti.

2 Rockstar's brain-dead PR campaign put the blame on modders. Then "Hot Coffee" was unlocked in the two console pressings of the game. No third-party skins. No scripts.

Once caught in the big lie, the story could have only one ending.

3 Ignoring "Hot Coffee" would have set a terrible precedent and made a complete wreakage of the voluntary ratings system.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

"yeah, son, you can play this game where you have to sell drugs, have sex with prostitutes, murder policemen and steal their cars... it's all ok; just so long as there is no unrealistic computer simulated sex in it"

Read my mind.

Re:parents - think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen

I'ld rather they did both. But I'm an anarchist.

Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[Kamel Jockey]

Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers

This is crazy. It is not like GTA San Andreas was rated "E for Everyone" and then "unexpectedly" showed some adult-rated content to minors. Even with an "M" rating, how could any reasonable parent buy this game for their child and not thing something inappropriate would be there?

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[geoffspear]

This is America. There are parents who think it's perfectly appropriate for their children to see graphic violence but that seeing an exposed nipple will permanently harm their children.

One can only assume they don't breastfeed.

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[kfg]

Even with an "M" rating, how could any reasonable parent buy this game for their child and not thing something inappropriate would be there?

Perfectly legal conversation in much of the US between two people one of whom is sixteen years of age:

"Yeah sweetheart, I asked you over to show you the Hot Coffee mod of GTA, but the guy at the store wouldn't sell it to me because I was underage. Wanna fuck?"

"Yeah, sure."

Anyone who has ever claimed that our sex laws make a lick of sense was either lying and/or ignorant.

KFG

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[Babbster]

You're right, but only to a point. In this case, a parent could find a game with stealing, murder and drugs "appropriate" for their child but draw the line at sex - in fact, unfortunately, this is exactly the way many parents feel. The issue, therefore, is the rating and its attendant descriptors. For example, the ESRB could find the sexual content to fall within the parameters of an "M" rating but they'd still put a descriptor on the box indicating the presence of that content. That they didn't have the opportunity to do so because the content wasn't disclosed is the problem, and that's why the FTC got involved.

I think the reason that the FTC didn't do anything serious this time is likely because they were told that leaving unused content in games has been going on for a long time. For example, developers will leave unused models and textures on a disc just in case an obscure line of code exists that makes reference to a file that is no longer truly part of the game (i.e., I've read that there were extra mechs in Mechassault 2 that had models on the game disc but never appear in the game). Rockstar will just have to be more careful next time and if they are then they won't have to deal with the FTC on this issue again.

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[soft_guy]

There is a difference between "seeing a nipple" and getting sexually aroused by pornography. Not that I agree with the anti-sex crusaders, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that getting sexually excited by a magazine or a computer game confuses children (gives them unrealistic ideas) about how they should behave in real romantic relationships later in life.

If violent content is less objectionable it is because we don't aspire to have our children become violent gun fighters. However, read any book on handgun self defence and they will tell you that if you get your ideas on how to behave in a gunfight from movies or video games, that you will end up dead.

So, it is precisely BECAUSE we expect our children to be in sexual relationships that people object to children being exposed to pr0n.

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[VlartBlart]

I agree entirely - when I bought my PS2 copy of San Andeas from Dixons (UK electronic retailer) the guy behind me was there with his 12 yr old son whom he was buying the game for. I chatted to him whilst waiting to get served and he had no idea what the game was about and didn't seem to care that it had a rating older than his son. I got the impression the dad was a caring guy and wouldn't, say, buy his kid an 18 rated film but this was, hey, just a computer game.

When I was 12 (1982) I played lots of violent video games - the crap graphics didn't show it [the violence] as realistically as they do now.

I did have a point but now I've forgotten it...

Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fat and bald and smelly, but I have two sex tips for you (like to pass on the invaluable knowledge that helped me):

1. To get laid: the First thing you need to do on a date (after you asked the girl out and she agreed) is ask the girl right upfront: "will you sleep with me tonight?" Remember, don't use this as a pickup line, ask the girl out first, and after she agrees and appoints time, and AFTER you pick her up and take her anywhere, here is when you ask.

For example, at a popcorn stand at the movie theater (BEFORE you pay; don't give a shit about the people around, just go ahead and ask), at a restaraunt table (AFTER you get the menus, but BEFORE you order, if you ask at the end of evening, you will pretty much get a 'no'), or at your home (BEFORE you start to look at the stamp collection). Remember, if you do not get a definite 'yes', don't even bother with the bitch!

Only works on girls that do not know you personally.

2. At a bar to 'pick up' a strange girl, do the following: a) "Buy you a drink?" or something along these lines, and if she agrees, do: b) "Before I buy the drink, tell me, will you sleep with me tonight?"

99.9% lay rate, if done right. 100% for me so far!

I figure that when they agree to go out the first time, they already are comitted to effing you... but most men just screw up during the date, and change the girls' minds. So, BEFORE you have a chance to screw up, seal the deal.

$11 K ?

[thePig]

$11 K per violation?
this is absurd .. for complanies that make money in millions...

Re:$11 K ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Violations = each instance of the item that is published with the offending material.

Re:$11 K ?

[ClamIAm]

Well, I believe that in the past, the ESRB was much more an "honor system" type of process. The game company wanting a rating would send a video that "accurately reflects" the general content of the game. If, however, Rockstar is forced to document each thing that could change the rating, it's a bit different. A game the size of GTA has hundreds of events that may reflect on the rating.

I'm still confused

[grasshoppa]

Why was this even an issue? Rockstar didn't ship this content as active, a third party mod had to be used to get to it. They did not ship that content with intent to be seen, and if the code wasn't there by default to enable that section, it can hardly be their fault if players go out of the way to activate it.

Re:I'm still confused

[Pope]

Doesn't matter, IMO, the content shouldn't have been in a final shipping product in the first place.

Re:I'm still confused

[tacarat]

Doesn't matter, IMO, the content shouldn't have been in a final shipping product in the first place.

Now companies need to start looking into buying insurance to protect against this. After all, how much coding did the embedded version of Hot Coffee take? Compare that to the amount of legit code and you see that an unethical person could put something into the program before release and hold that over the company for blackmail purposes or revenge if they ever get fired. I don't think this is something that's as easy to protect against as one might think. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20 02/06/va_nimda_korea.html Even Microsoft missed some code when shipping a product. Scanners and automated tools are only as good as the information they're told to look for. An individual programmer set on adding some content (or sloppy about removing a joke) could cost a company a lot of money. Maybe not that much in terms of fines ($11k is still a lot of money, especially for smaller companies), but in terms of consumer faith and reputation.

Re:I'm still confused

[grasshoppa]

Doesn't matter, IMO, the content shouldn't have been in a final shipping product in the first place.

Maybe not, but there is no functional difference between the content not being shipped with it and being shipped but turned off.

Re:I'm still confused

[AHumbleOpinion]

Maybe not, but there is no functional difference between the content not being shipped with it and being shipped but turned off.

Someone being able to turn the content on proves otherwise.

Re:I'm still confused

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Someone could have created a mod which created that scene rather than unlocking it. For the end-user, what the hell is the difference? They're just running hot-coffee-patch.exe.

How culpable is a company for people modifying their software? If I take all of their textures and pick-and-choose-and-cut-and-paste until I have something that looks like a boobie, did the software "ship" with that boobie?

Re:I'm still confused

[ThinkWeak]

That all depends...

What time of day did you make the boobie? If it was after 10pm EST, then it's probably alright.

Re:I'm still confused

[Scudsucker]

Someone being able to turn the content on proves otherwise.

Not when you have to run a third party program, with no affiliation to Rockstar, it doesn't.

Re:I'm still confused

[LOTHAR, of the Hill]

I don't dooubt for a second that it wasn't a RockStar employee who released the mod in the first place. It was just way too soon after the game's release to be otherwise.

Re:I'm still confused

[Targon]

The vast majority of applications out there, not just games, have code that has been disabled because it just didn't work. The original Diablo had a bunch of quests and such on the original CD that were bugged and disabled(and never fixed and added back in later). It's all a function of that push to release quickly that we all know exists in the game industry.

So, Take 2 turned off content, but never purged it from the code. That's not an intentional attempt to fool anyone about the content in the game, so there really shouldn't have been a problem. I can understand the ESRB making the company remove the content from the code, but the fault is on the person who released the mod since he violated the terms of the game license.

Re:I'm still confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is. The whole point is that there is a functional difference.

The game as shipped never shows anybody that content. The models and graphics are very hard to get at outside of the game and impossible to get at inside the game. Should River City Ransom have been rated differently because of the hidden sprites?

Re:I'm still confused

[Jerf]

If I take all of their textures and pick-and-choose-and-cut-and-paste until I have something that looks like a boobie, did the software "ship" with that boobie?

Information theory to the rescue. In order to do that, your instructions will either be quite lengthy, or your search time will be long. Either way, the very instructions themselves constitute additional content; they are not themselves free of meaning or implication, as that would mean by definition they would have no effect.

You're still adding the "boobie" information to a product that did not previously contain it.

There is still a philosophical conundrum along the lines of "what, ultimately, does this long series of numbers really mean?", but this answer is sufficient to cover everything I've been able to think of from a legal standpoint. In my terms, no matter how tricky you get in the encoding, you're still adding the concrete part of the boobie.

Re:I'm still confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I am still confused as to why you are stupid.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the content was active. It matters that it was availible and shipped and it was not mentioned. It certainly can be their fault if the players go out of there way.

"jeeze judge, i can't be held responsible because little billy shot suzy with my gun. I mean, it was in another room -- not his -- and he had to go out of his way to get it. Besides, it wasn't even loaded, he had to put the bullets in hiself."

The point is this, sure the above parent didn't kill suzy, but he enabled her death to some degree. Sure he didn't give billy a loaded gun, but he provided all the means to have a loaded gun. IN the same way rockstar provided all the requisite materials for the mod (to my understanding) and so they are responsible for its content.

Now, I can understand how they thought it didn't matter. I would even belive it was an honest mistake -- but it is a mistake nontheless and should be avoided in the future.

Anyone who does not see how rockstar is responsible because THEY INCLUDED THE CONTENT THAT WAS DISPLAYED is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Re:I'm still confused

[Hatta]

Why was this even an issue?

Because the FTC is a power hungry bureaucracy feeding off the righteous indignation of american puritans.

Re:I'm still confused

[dfn_deux]

I wish I had a link to the story, but....

A while back there was a case where a publisher outsourced their production to a company that also happened to print covers for pornographic movies. The Publisher put in an order for some childrens' books to be printed and the manufacturer reused some material from the porno covers to print the children's book on top of. If used as intended the pornography was never visible, HOWEVER if one modified the book by tearing off layers of paper from it's hardcover pornographic material would be present.

The publisher was soon IIRC and they in turn sued the printing company. This all sounds good and reasonable to me...

No replace the apropriate bits from that story with the bits from the GTA/hot coffee story and you can easily see where the problem is at least partly the fault of the publisher for not sufficiently ensuring that their product was shipped with everything it was supposed to have and nothing that it wasn't supposed to have.

Re:I'm still confused

[grasshoppa]

Except the content was neither available as shipped, nor was it displayed as shipped. It is not the fault of rockstar that their game was hacked to display content which they included ( likely because they thought they might get away with it, and the investment seemed worth it at the time ), but didn't activate.

Legally, I don't see why this is rockstar's problem.

Re:I'm still confused

[AHumbleOpinion]

Someone could have created a mod which created that scene rather than unlocking it. For the end-user, what the hell is the difference? They're just running hot-coffee-patch.exe. How culpable is a company for people modifying their software?

You are answering your own question. The company created and shipped the scene, not some end user. That is the difference, that is why the company has culpability.

Re:I'm still confused

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

If there is no difference at all in the "real world", why should there be any punishment? To anyone viewing the scene, the experience is exactly the same.

Re:I'm still confused

[Jafafa Hots]

I find it fascinating that someone can have the opinion that animated soft-core sex that would get maybe an R rating in a movie should not be hidden in a game where the objective is to kill cops and other people, have sex with prostitutes and beat them to death, etc.

I can certainly see someone having a problem with the game itself, but objecting to this content in this game is akin to obecting to the use of profanity in a porno film.

Re:I'm still confused

[AHumbleOpinion]

If there is no difference at all in the "real world", why should there be any punishment? To anyone viewing the scene, the experience is exactly the same.

The real world difference is that the company had a part in the end result, they created the scene.

Re:I'm still confused

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

There's no difference in the real world to the end user though. They download a file from someone who's unaffiliated with the company, then run that file.

Re:I'm still confused

[Anonymous Coward]

but the real question is this...

is it rockstar's fault that the content was able to be displayed? -- the answer is a resounding "yes."

Perhaps without the content that rockstar included (locked or otherwise) there would still have been a "sex-mod." Who can say? However, the facts are clear that this hypothetical "sex-mod" would not have been of the same form (mechanics, graphics, ect) as the hot coffee mod that existed. Thus, we see that rockstar has contributed a significant part of the hot-coffe mod (ie. the content) thus, unwittingly or not, they have contributed to the mod (INCLUDING it in the game -- again locked or not does not matter anymore). Thus, they must be at least to some degree culpable.

So to answer the question as to whether or not rockstar failed to disclose everything, the answer must again be "yes."

Now, I really don't understand how you can disagree with this. It is all quite logical. The REAL question that must be adressed -- at the policy level -- is wether or not sex is something worth flipping out about. We MUST have developers disclosing all the content, if they submit themselves for a rating. BUT if there is sex, then is really worth creating a stigma about it? I personally don't think so, and that is why i write letters ON PAPER to my congressman expressing my feelings. If you don't do that then how can you expect the policy makers in washinton to know what you are thinking??

Re:I'm still confused

[AHumbleOpinion]

There's no difference in the real world to the end user though. They download a file from someone who's unaffiliated with the company, then run that file.

They are not answering to an end user who downloaded a hack. They are answering to the ESRB, retailers, stockholders, and the government. It matters to these folks that the comapany was involved.

Re:I'm still confused

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

But the groups complaining are complaining on behalf of the end users. The reason the FCC gets involved in Nipplegate is because the end users (viewers) were exposed to something that they did not sign up for, and had a reasonable expectation of not seeing.

In ... CoffeeGate? ... the end users have no case at all. And the only reason the groups you listed above have a stake in this is because of groups acting on behalf of the end users.

Re:I'm still confused

[JamesGecko]

...there is no functional difference between the content not being shipped with it and being shipped but turned off.

What about the PS2 version, where it was shipped AND turned on? link

Re:I'm still confused

[AHumbleOpinion]

Those groups are acting on behalf of customers who purchased the product, for example the parents of the end user who downloaded the hack. Since the company created the scene and was involved in the delivery of the scene the customers have a justifiable complaint against the company. You can't blow that point off with "the end result is the same". In a court of law rhe actual actions that led to an event are what count, not hypothetical actions that could have led to the same outcome.

Fair enough.

[Mikachu]

Personally, I think this was a pretty good settlement. $11,000 per violation isn't really all that much, but something that might be a good idea to consider: it's for their own good.

According to the article, Take-Two claims to have lost $24.5 million due to the scandal (and having most stores take it off the shelf while they wait for the re-rating). The people programming the game might not even know this. But they will undoubtedly know about the fine, so... they will probably make more of a point to let everyone know.

Of course, that's just my take.

Re:Fair enough.

[Cartack]

They lost 24.5 million ( I wonder what kind off accounting they used to come up with that figure )... Also I wonder how much of that is offset by all of the publicity/sales they gained from the whole affair.

Re:Fair enough.

[Dunbal]

They lost 24.5 million ( I wonder what kind off accounting they used to come up with that figure )

      Accounting services provided courtesy MPAA and RIAA! Oh and sorry, that was BILLION.

Government saves us again

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a close one!

A victory?

[Rapter09]

Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system

I think that's a statement that could be construed as a victory for the ESRB, reinforcing that it wasn't the ESRBs fault that T2\RockStar didn't disclose the information. I think it's a good statement.

that's just great

[Anonymous Coward]

.. but isn't that like almost encouraging them to do it? per violation.. does that mean per game sold, or per porno game in a game? .. heck at this rate, they would be able to get away with making a full porno game released as PG and have more than enough sales from horny pimple faced teens and the viewership of slashdot to cover what constitutes half the salary of an average receptionist for a whole year...

good one guys.

-Sj53

No, actually, it wasn't a big deal.

[Frobozz0]

"We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

*sigh*

No, actually it wasn't that big of a deal. Our priorities in this country baffle me sometimes. The rampant violence in this game wasn't bad in their eyes. Some rough sex and they draw the line? Come on, you had to mod the program just to see it!

I hope enough people see through this charade.

Re:No, actually, it wasn't a big deal.

[bwalling]

The problem isn't that there was content of this nature, it was that it was hidden from the review committee, which can be considered deceptive. If this were allowed, then all games could get through with an E and then actually have violent/pornographic/profane content "hidden" in the game, provide the user enter the secret code that "accidentally" found its way on to the Internet. This decision makes reasonable sense. It's not so much about the content in this particular instance, it's about the potential abuse of this "loophole"

Re:No, actually, it wasn't a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a "secret code" -- techincally, it's a violation of the DMCA. And, if you're breaking the law by viewing the content, I don't think it should be judged based on it...

I guess that means no more Easter Eggs

[Lead Butthead]

You can bet that companies are now going to pay more attention to inclusion of varies ... undocumented features.

Workarounds now

[thePig]

Now that one mode of getting more revenue is closed (at $11K it is just a slap in the wrist, anyways), they will come up with workarounds.
Maybe new hacks (patches??) which will plug in all M-rated items.

Thus, nobody can slight them on being on the wrong ... since the M-rated areas are not part of the package ...
So, no recall of the game too.

The FTC should have blocked these too, in the ruling.

Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[WidescreenFreak]

As indicated above, this is a slap on the wrists. Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses. Let's face facts. They got a ton of criticism because of the way that they handled this. That wasn't a Rockstar release. It was a third party hack. Lots of games have third party hacks that allow this. That doesn't mean that it was done with the approval of the game maker. If a programmer puts an inappropriate comment in a program that will never be displayed but someone gets offended when trying to illegally hack the code, should the company be sued?

Antucally, this kind of ruling sets a precedence that almost makes it seem like a possible marketing tactic: Hey, if we don't announce this and someone finds out, we could make a huge increase in sales from the publicity and only pay an $11,000 fine! It's costs more to advertize in major gaming magazines!

I will take exception with one this that was said (emphasis mine):

Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system.

Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege ... at least for now.

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[CRCulver]

Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses.

Howard Stern ran into problems from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this article describes the actions of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[geekoid]

are you against truth in advertising as well?

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[donutello]

How does this crap get modded up? This was the FTC, not the FCC that dealt with Howard Stern.

Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege ... at least for now.

No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[mgabrys_sf]

So all those diet pill ads on tv work?

My GOD - just imagine!

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[Danse]

No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.

I don't think they made any false statements at all. The game, as it was sold to people, deserved the rating it had. That only changes if you modify the game yourself later. The users took action specifically to change the underlying code of the game in order to make this content available in the game. The users knew what they were doing. It's not the fault of the developer.

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[WidescreenFreak]

How does this crap get modded up? This was the FTC, not the FCC that dealt with Howard Stern.

All right! All right! I already admitted that I goofed up on that one! Brother!

No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.

Bull! That code was never meant to be an accessible part of the game by anything that the user would have done through normal means! It was inaccessible when using the game as intended. Only by a third party hack without the approval of Rockstar was it even made available!

I've used the example before and I still stand behind it! If I made a program that as intended is a family game, but I have vulgar code comments that got compiled into the executable and some hacker releases the comment through an unauthorized hack. I advertisied the game as a family game, which is was, but some hacker makes a hack that makes it not-so-family-friendly. It wasn't meant to be an accessible part of the game, so there was no reason whatsoever to advertise it. How does that possibly mean that I am somehow responsible for false advertising?!

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[Mister Whirly]

I think not being decieved by false advertising is actually a law and neither a right or privilege...

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[jrockway]

> Howard Stern ran into problems from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this article describes the actions of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

Still an oppressive regime either way.

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[The New Stan Price]

The whole "right" vs "privilege" argument is silly. Rights are only guaranteed by a people's ability to agree on them and protect them. Privileges are something we give children because they live under a dictatorship until they are adults. Our government does not grant privileges, but rather it protects its citizen's rights. The government serves us, not the other way around. With rights come responsibilities, which is where the entertainment company failed and where the rating system comes into play.

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege.

Is that why the FTC always says caveat emptor?

Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps?

[kthejoker]

While I agree with the sentiments of your post, I think that Rockstar cannot *afford* to make any sort of principled stand on including risque content without an obvious method of accessing it on a disc they have listed as M out in the public market. The reason for this is simple: the mod (in the eyes of the ESRB) moved the game from M to AO, which most retailers refuse to stock and sell.

If the Sesame Street game had a hack which revealed profane comments, I imagine the FTC would be inclined to leave their rating as an E and simply attach a disclaimer to the box or some other method of consumer protection. I think this is primarily because the FTC would be more inclined to believe that this sort of ratings violation was inadvertent and not desired by the programmers - whereas I'm sure Rockstar thought it was pretty cool up until they got hit with the AO.

Perhaps this is a double standard, and this certainly is the root behind the large debate on this site and on others. But the simple truth is that GTA:SA was already rated M for Mature and was viewed as borderline gratuitous. The sheer incompetence (or audacity!) of their programmers to leave material on the disc being sold that would compromise their tenuous rating led to them getting thumped proper.

This will discourage guerilla programmers from including other Hot Coffee mods in their programs and then leaking the hacks in hopes of getting publicity and sales. Ultimately this is rather principled stand by the FTC: all content on the disc, hidden or otherwise, intentional or not, must be provided to the ESRB, or the gamemakers may face sanctioning. This will capture a few "innocent victims" of incompetence and oversight (Rockstar), but it'll also stop other companies from trying the same avenue for profit. Which is a win-win for both parents and ultimately the industry.

I would heartily encourage more companies to make AO games that are actually as fun as GTA:SA. Perhaps by making this stigma more clear (some games *must* be played and viewed by adults first before kids can play them) we can get retailers to stock AO games that aren't just porn titles, and we as a society can make better (and more accurate) decisions about the games we play, and the games our kids play.

Because fraud is involved

[MikeRT]

They put the content in the game, then locked it away. The ESRB did not know about this, rated it lower than it should have, and then people bought it based on the ESRB's rating, thus buying it under false pretenses. The FTC stepped in and actually did something free-market: "you will abide by the rating system that you agreed to sell your product under." Punishing fraud is one of the most basic things the government is supposed to do.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually that is the antithesis of a free market. A free market means there is no government intervention. Sure, the government might do something that promotes what it thinks the best interests of all players involved (and I might not disagree with this idea either), but thats not what a free market is.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[Rude Turnip]

"Punishing fraud is one of the most basic things the government is supposed to do."

At most, this is a civil dispute over a breach of contract between Rockstar and the ESRB regarding the disclosure requirements for the ratings system. That is a job for the court system. The FTC's role in this is wholly illegitimate.

Jeez, wait until they discover Haley's ping pong ball trick in "Rockstar Table Tennis" :)

Re:Because fraud is involved

[morcheeba]

locked it away.

Their lock was/is secure. If you play the game, there is no way you will see it.

However, if you modify their code, then you can see it. The same can be said of anything -- if people to change it, they can pervert it. Would you hold Edios responsible for the nuderaider patch?

Now, if there was a special in-game unlock code you could perform, I'd agree with you. Otherwise, its just a case of "you can see nude pictures when you download stuff from the internet".

Re:Because fraud is involved

[forand]

So if fraud was involved shouldn't this have been resolved by the courts NOT the FTC? I understand your point that Rockstar agreed to have their products rated by the ESRB but I don't see how this involves the FTC since it appears as though, if anything, it is fraud but that is resolved in our court system.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[Do You Smell That]

The only problem I have with your arguement is this: the only way to access the hidden content is with a modified PS2, something that violates the agreement you had with Sony when you purchased your console. Anyone who was completely law abiding would never have had access to this content.

Am I trying to say they should be in the clear for putting the material on the disk? I don't know. On the one hand, they must have known that given enough time someone would find the hidden content. It's what us nerds do. On the other hand, there was no legal or practical reason for anyone to be looking for that material on the disk, so maybe some lenience is acceptable.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[KDR_11k]

For a market to exist the government has to enforce the law. Otherwise concepts like property and contracts become meaningless. In this case there was a contract between the ESRB and Rockstar that said "You assure us that what you've shown us is the worst stuff in the game and we let you use our 'Rated M for Mature' label". In the eyes of the government Rockstar failed to uphold its end of the contract and advertised compliance with a standard the product did not actually comply with, which means the buyer is misled to believe the product has a "feature" it does not actually have. I don't see what's against the free market here or do you mean free market means you can defraud the customer?

Re:Because fraud is involved

[Anonymous Coward]

They put the content in the game, then locked it away. The ESRB did not know about this, rated it lower than it should have, and then people bought it based on the ESRB's rating, thus buying it under false pretenses.

The ESRB rating only covers the unaltered game. It doesn't (and can't) cover playing the game with mods.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[kthejoker]

This is not a "resolution," this is the enforcement of a consumer protection law. The FTC has been given the authority to levy fines for those infringing on the various laws they enforce (a complete list of consumer protection statutes enforced by the FTC can be found here: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/stat3.htm.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[k_187]

the nude stuff you see isn't downloaded off the internet. Rockstar made it and put it on the disk.

Re:Because fraud is involved

[tehcyder]

"you can see nude pictures when you download stuff from the internet"

Well you could have provided a link at least. Jeez.

$11,000 might not sound like much...

[Nutmegan]

But if I discover the hidden content and tell two friends, then they each tell two friends...the fines could reach millions of dollars easily. Is the government into multi-level marketing style fines?

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Red Flayer]

""Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system," commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."

After reading TFA, this is the most remarkable line in it. Props to submitter.

Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.

You know what? If parents have the right to rely on an independent, private body for game ratings, then I have the right to rely on Fox News (an independent, private body, right?) for fair and balanced news, the right to have all the information presented to me. So where's Fox's fine for not presenting fair and balanced news? Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?

/rant

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[CompressedAir]

We've had limits on "caveat emptor" for quite a while now.

Or is it all right for a food package to put "peanut free" on food that does contain peanuts? I'm not talking about a bag of peanuts either... Candy that nominally does not contain peanuts often is "contaminated" by nearby candy producing lines.

The basic principle in America is that an advertiser is not allowed to outright lie to you. We can all certainly debate whether that's what Rockstar did here (I, personally, do not feel that anyone was willfully deceived), but we threw out the idea of unlimited buyer bewareing a long time ago.

It goes like this: Many people in the country feel that exposure to sex harms their children. (I know, I know, but it's their belief and I don't tell people what to believe.) Thus, Rockstar did the equivalent of putting "peanut free" on a jar of peanuts and feeding it to someone who is allergic.

I don't agree, but I do understand.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Danse]

Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.

The difference in this case is that the ESRB ratings were established by the industry as a substitute for government regulation. They claimed they could self-regulate, and didn't need the government to step in. Same thing as the movie industry. Now if the ratings aren't reliable, then the government will have cause to step in and establish its own system for informing people of what's in the games. Not that they'd do any better probably, but that's the argument. That's why they say that parents have a right to rely on the ratings.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Surt]

I think you'll find the current administration of the FTC thinks that FOX news is fair and balanced. But they may have to use fines against the other networks to bring them into line.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Surt]

There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.

It's a right in the same sense that you have a right to expect that UL approved appliances aren't going to have easily exposed wiring that will electrocute you.

Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[farble1670]

Or is it all right for a food package to put "peanut free" on food that does contain peanuts? I'm not talking about a bag of peanuts either... Candy that nominally does not contain peanuts often is "contaminated" by nearby candy producing lines.

right, and in response, most every type of candy or bakery item now says "may contain peanuts" just to cover their asses. no, i don't have a point.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Tiro]

Candy that nominally does not contain peanuts often is "contaminated" by nearby candy producing lines.

I'm tired of all these peanut pansies who can't eat touch anything that's been in the same room as a few molecules of peanut dust.

If you're one of these peanut pussies, you're probably smoking Marlboro Lights, and herding sheep on Brokeback Mountain.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[vidarlo]

It goes like this: Many people in the country feel that exposure to sex harms their children. (I know, I know, but it's their belief and I don't tell people what to believe.) Thus, Rockstar did the equivalent of putting "peanut free" on a jar of peanuts and feeding it to someone who is allergic.

no, you can not compare it. The scens was there, but disabled. You had to activly install a patch to view them. That is, you, as a consumer, had to deliberately want to view them. Which would mean that you dipped your own candy in peatnuts...

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Red Flayer]

I understand that, but why is a federal agency fining Rockstar? This type of issue should be settled in a tort suit if at all. What law did Take2 break?

The whole point of establishing the ESRB was to keep federal censorship from happening. Now we have a nebulous entity with governmental support in the role of censoring a form of media. Christ, if it were the government, it would at least be answerable to people in some form. Instead it's an organization that takes dubious care with its responsibilities and is accountable to no one other than mass retailers.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[RexRhino]

But buyer beware is coming back, just in a different form! For example, lets take peanuts (And peanut allergies). People are so sue happy, that companies that don't make any products with any sort of peanut ingredient are labeling their product as having peanuts to cover their asses legally. It is way easier to put a disclaimer on a package saying "this might contain peanuts", than to try to garantee a product doesn't have peanuts and face legal repercussions. It is only a matter of time (and it has damn near almost heere already), that all packages, no-matter what the food or what the circumstance is, will contain warnings about peanuts.

People alergic to peanuts must have thought they were smart for suing about traces of peanuts in food... but soon they won't be able to know what foods contain peanuts because every company and every food product is going to protect themselves with a peanut warning.

Same with warning on prescription drugs. Prescriptions drugs now contain warners about "side effects" that include just about every possible symptom anyone can possibly have. It is easier to just give a rediciously long list of possible side effects, than to face the consequences of a law suit. The end result is that the "side effect" warnings of prescription drugs are completly useless. Virtually all the side effects listed for a prescription drug are listed just to cover the asses of the drug maker, and so it is impossible to get any realistic side effect information on a drug from a manufacturer.

When I buy some non-drowsy cold medicine, I don't really know if I can drive a car after taking the medicine or not, because every drug manufacturer is so afraid of a legal action that they will say not to operate a motor vehicle or heavy machinary just to play it safe.

Likewise, if you punish video game makers frivolously, they are just going to cover their ass by making everything Mature or Adult Only. Since the vast majority of video games are purchased by adults, and since kids that purchase video games most of the time purchase it with a parent present anyway, companies are just gonna make every single game Adult Only. Wall Mart might not stock AO games now, but if that is the only way they can sell Barbie Pony Adventure and Deer Hunter, they will eventually change their policy.

The end result for the rating system will be the same. There is no foolproof way to make sure there will never be something interpreted as "offensive" or "adult" or "suggestive" by some board or agency or group. When all games have a panel of catch all warnings and disclaimers, it is going to be harder for parents to judge a game than it is now.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[sesshomaru]

Actually, it seems to me that every video game I play nowadays has an annoying warning that it might trigger an epileptic seizure before it lets me actually play the game.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Red Flayer]

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the government has the right to censor, and didn't only because the industry agreed to self-censor.

The truth of the matter is that the government's right to censor was never settled -- and this was a compromise that included little risk for either party, as compared to making the censorship debate get through Congress, the Executive, and to the SCOTUS. Therefore, the entire argument is invalid until that issue is settled. And I guarantee you which way the chips would fall -- and it wouldn't be on the side of government censorship.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Danse]

Therefore, the entire argument is invalid until that issue is settled. And I guarantee you which way the chips would fall -- and it wouldn't be on the side of government censorship.

If you can guarantee that, then I think there's some game industry lawyers who want to hire you. Also, it doesn't invalidate the argument, it is simply a fact that the government may be able to regulate the industry if there is enough of an outcry over things like this. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Regardless though, the industry promised to regulate itself, so it should do so.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it would be more like labelling a box of biscuits "peanut free" and including a packet of peanuts. Sure, they had to open the packet, but you were bloody lying when you said it was "peanut free". Now, had you had the sense to include a coupon redeemable by post for a packet of peanuts, not only would your label have been in the clear, but it is highly likely you would have saved a few pounds on peanuts... or even made a few pence for the proverbial "shipping and handling" fees.

They should have made hotcoffee a value-added premium download.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Red Flayer]

There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.

Sure, but then it's an issue for tort suit, not for agency regulation. Without getting into a Libertarian theory confabulation about the FTC, I'll say that Hot Coffee was not included in the game. Period. On the disc is a different matter, but the ESRB is concerned with the game itself, not the physical medium. The product was not used in a manner consistent with its labeling, there should be a very limited avenue of redress.

Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).

Not only do they advertise fair and balanced, but regular show hosts have admitted that they are not -- though I'm sure the management would have a different song to sing.

In addition to the fact that the current administration would let the FTC touch them with a ten-foot pole, we all know that the 'censorship' hue and cry would destroy any chances of a successful false advertising judgment, or of a tort suit (which would need to prove harm, anyway).

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Red Flayer]

Sorry, should have meant that I'd guarantee the way the chips would fall if it went to the courts right now. Look at all the laws being struck down as the pop up in the states. A federal censorship law for non-broadcast would drop like a duck in today's SCOTUS. The problem is that during the course of settling it, the game industry would get a bad rap and lose sales, in addition to having to spend tens of millions -- this is why the ESRB came about, not because of uncertainty about the outcome. The flip side was that conservative legislators began to detect the schism between their truly conservative followers and their 'morally/socially conservative' followers -- censorship of media would piss off one as much as it pleased the other. Too politically risky.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Castar]

Watch as the analogy screams in pain:

This is more like if Rockstar sold a jar of candy with a secret, airtight, combination-locked portion that contained peanuts. No one not looking for peanuts would ever see them, but those that wanted could have candy *and* peanuts. The only people who got peanuts were those who desired peanuts and went to considerable trouble to get at them.

That's the thing about this: I have no problem with any company being fined for misleading consumers about the content of their product. Consumers should have the right to be free from nasty surprises. But in order to get at the content in this one took concerted effort - no one would ever see this *by accident*. I don't see why Rockstar should pay because their consumers effectively *demanded* that content.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[sik0fewl]

Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?

Well, it's already been ruled that that the media is allowed to lie.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Danse]

Ok, I get what you're saying now. You're probably right about that. But the point still stands that the industry promised to regulate itself, and it should do so. That said, I don't think Rockstar actually did anything wrong in this case.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have severe peanut allergies, and you have it completely backwards. The reason why companies are labeling the top 10 allergens now is because the Food Allergy Network lobbied for a law that requires it (coming into effect August), not because of lawsuits.

Really, labeling top 10 allergens is a win-win for the companies and the consumers. Everytime I try new foods I have to call the company and check on the manufacturing process. Usually they have no formal policy for dealing with allergies, or their policy is not rigorous enough for people with severe peanut allergies, and so it takes them a couple weeks to research and get back to me - its a goddamn pain in the ass for everyone involved.

It is trivial for the companies to use the new consistent policy put forward by people who know about allergies and print a small warning on their product. It helps people with severe allergies know right away whether they can have a food product, it lets the company spend less money hiring employees to deal with people like me on the phone. It doesn't decrease the quality of the product for everyone else, and it might save some lives along the way.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[ArsenneLupin]

most every type of candy or bakery item now says "may contain peanuts" just to cover their asses.

And this phrase is especially funny if found on an item that quite obviously contains nuts, such as the proverbial baggy of peanuts.

Hey, I can understand such warnings on products for which it is not obvious that they may have nutty contents (such as a hip flask of Scotch). But if the main point of the product is nuts, why put that stoopid warning on? The US really have gone nuts with its excessive litigiousness.

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[ArsenneLupin]

It is trivial for the companies to use the new consistent policy put forward by people who know about allergies and print a small warning on their product.

The point of the grand-parent was that it is non-trivial to say for sure whether a product contains trace amounts of nuts or not. Indeed, not only do you need to think about the ingredients that you deliberately put in in your own production line, but you also need to worry about accidental contamination from neighboring lines, or about production processes of your suppliers. Researching all this, and guaranteeing that it will stay the same takes a considerable amount of resources.

So it's just easier for companies to put nutty warnings on all their products, with the result that you still don't get to try new foods (because all of them will have the warning, whether relevant or not...)

it might save some lives along the way.

Well, instead of dying from their allergy, the same people will now die from starvation, because all products have the warning...

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[ArsenneLupin]

I don't see why Rockstar should pay because their consumers effectively *demanded* that content.

That's the subtle difference between customer and user.

The customer is the guy who buys (or pays for) the product. I.e. the parent.

The user is the guy who uses or plays with the product. In this case the kid.

Yes, the user was actively seeking out (demanding) this content, but the customers/em? surely didn't!

Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

[eraserewind]

True up to a point, but at a certain stage market forces come into play, and companies willing to take the risk of being "peanut free" (or more likely "child friendly", since that's a much bigger market) will make products to serve that market because of the profits that exist in doing so. Course it sucks if you are a small market, but I think your claim that video games will all be adult only is particularly exaggerated. Everything containing peanuts is significantly more likely.

Glad the FTC is watching over

[zuki]

This was totally outrageous! Just as much of a newsworthy item as Janet's 'wardrobe malfunction'!(I couldn't sleep for 3 months after watching that one)!

It would be a crying shame that kids should be exposed to (Godless?) non-graphical but still titillating sex simulations.

It might detract from their training shooting hundreds of thousands of opponents, so that they can further be brainwashed into becoming our next batch of cannon fodder to send to Iraq or wherever else our glorious leaders will be "Bringing Freedom" to in the coming years.

The FTC is only performing its patriotic duty to keep kids in line for all the state-sanctioned killing they will have to do later on.

Although, as Dr Strangelove once pointed out, reproductive duties might also have to become state-sanctioned and even encouraged when population needs to be replenished due to a 'red button malfunction' in the Oval Orifice.

Z.

Re:Glad the FTC is watching over

[fwwr5007]

"Mr. President, we must not allow an undocumented feature gap!"

*sigh* Where's my caffeine?

[WidescreenFreak]

Antucally

Christ! If that's not an indication that I need to buy more Penguin Mints, I don't know what is. If anyone can translate that for me, I'd appreciate it. I think I meant to say "actually", but upon looking at that, I'm not quite sure. :)

pfft

[Anonymous Coward]

So whilst it's perfectly all right for "the children" to experience gunning down coppers, twocking cars and running down pedestrians with an ambulance, a bit of rumpy-pumpy sets all the censors ablaze? Someone better tell them that the US has the largest porn industry of any other country on earth so they can shut that down too...

Re:pfft

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been pointed out many times. Some research (can't recall right now, find your own source) found out that American parents are stupid, I mean err.. they find porn more dangerous than violence as opposed to European parents.

Tags for this article

[penguinstorm]

Out of curiousity, is there any article that you could see getting posted to Slashdot that *wouldn't* get tagged with "stupid"?

Re:Tags for this article

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any article that you could see getting posted to Slashdot that *wouldn't* get tagged with "stupid"?

      (looks around desperately for the -1 Stupid mod option)

Disclose ALL content, eh?

[elrous0]

Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games

Just to be sure, if I were Take Two, I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."

-Eric

Re:Disclose ALL content, eh?

[AHumbleOpinion]

"Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games"

Just to be sure, if I were Take Two,

If you plan to someday run a company you will need to learn to think through a couple of rounds of moves and countermoves. ;-)

I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."

And the ESRB responds: "With an attitude like that, no rating for you. Good luck talking to the buyer for Walmart."

Re:Disclose ALL content, eh?

[psykocrime]

Just to be sure, if I were Take Two, I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game.

And make sure it's all expressed in octal codes.

Re:Disclose ALL content, eh?

[Kesch]

Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games

So, even though they don't disclose it to the consumer, the ESRB still needs to see it?

Re:Disclose ALL content, eh?

[elrous0]

Good luck talking to the buyer for Walmart

I should BE so lucky as to not have to talk to those sharks. Talking with a buyer from Walmart is like negotiating with an 800 pound gorilla--an 800 pound gorilla who's holding a gun.

-Eric

It's not about the sex. It's about the lies.

[donutello]

Rockstar games was and is free to include sex scenes in their video games - as they are free to include violence.

What they can't do is deceive the rating board about the content. This is the Federal Trade Commission. Deceptive trade practices fall properly within their purview.

That being said, $11,000 is a ridiculously small fine and takes into account the fact that this was inadvertent rather than intentional.

Re:It's not about the sex. It's about the lies.

[Targon]

[quote]What they can't do is deceive the rating board about the content.[/quote]

That is the key, isn't it? If content is disabled and it takes reverse engineering to even find it, has Take 2 done anything wrong? So, they removed the "offending content" from new versions of the game. Since reverse engineering in order to find the content is a violation of the game license, Take 2 could theoretically sue the person who made the mod for damages.

Re:It's not about the sex. It's about the lies.

[Trepalium]

If Rockstar undermined the ESRB's ratings, it should've been the ESRB's job to punish Rockstar, rather than the FTC. No, this isn't about lies, or sex, or anything else. It's about politicians producing the appearance of "doing something" to "protect the children", and nothing more. The extremely small fine makes that even clearer. It is not, and should not be the job of the FTC to enforce the ESRB rating guidelines. Perhaps it's time for the ESRB to get some teeth, unless they want to go the way of the Comics Code Authority. When this hit the news the ESRB could barely muster faint criticism against Rockstar. With this single error, Rockstar managed to destroy almost all the credibility the ESRB had. Is it any wonder that the vultures swooped in?

This had NOTHING to do with SEX.

[geekoid]

It isn't about the sex, it's about not giving truthfull information to the ratings people.

They're not that different, though.

[WidescreenFreak]

As I said in my reply to myself, I'm in need of more late-afternoon caffeine. I realized small errors (cough) like that after I hit "Submit". Oh, well.

But in reality they're not all that different when it comes to this kid of issue. Both are government agencies that are responsible for various aspect of in this case communication. One handles the regulation of media over the airwaves; the other handles in this case the regulation of over physical goods.

I still think that this was a major CYA on their part.

Re:They're not that different, though.

[CRCulver]

The other handles in this case the regulation of over physical goods.

But your original message was still off. Rockstar was not punished for obscenity, since the FTC doesn't not regulate obscenity itself. They were published for deceptive advertising in allowing a rating to go on the game that did not truly reflect its content.

Re:They're not that different, though.

[WidescreenFreak]

But it did. If you played through the game the way that Rockstar had intended and the way that the released the code, you never would have seen it. It wasn't even there as an Easter Egg. It was abandoned code that was deactivated and reactivated only by a third party, unauthorized hack. Why is that possibly considered to be false advertising when it was code that would never have been accessible?

The Problem (+5, Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is pure drivel and its heading points out a small problem with CSS redesign. The score of the post is all the way over on the right side and so can be "interrupted" by the title of the post. The score should be on the left hand side just like the other metadata about the post.

Re:The Problem (+5, Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I see how having the score unambiguously placed on the right presents any sort of clarity issue. It's certainly obvious at a glance now that your post is not at +5-- I can clearly tell which one is the "real" score.

Re:The Problem (+5, Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I am the originator of the offending post. I always get (-1, troll) for telling the truth about linux/open source, but I don't normally say anything of a personal nature.

I dont mind the new CSS but I very much HATE how the score is to the far right. Hence I will continue abusing the (+5, interesting) appendage for some time. I want it on the left side because when I browse at -1, I need the combinaison of subject + score to know if it's worth reading, either because it's insightful/interesting or funny (troll/flamebait).

Re:The Problem (+5, Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. All post metadata should be grouped together. I'd go so far as to recommend posting upmod and downmod stats right next to the score.

Heck, stick the year in the timestamp and get rid of ugly shorthand like "@05:27PM" instead of "at 5:27 p.m." I've also always hated how only the most recent moderation is the one that is displayed at the top of the post, often "branding" a post for eternity as something ridiculous like "Score: -1, Interesting" or even "Score: 5, Off-topic." Finally, get rid of the damned fuzzy moderation percentages and stick to rounded integer-accurate percentages.

My proposal is something like the following:

This Is My Post Subject
by Anonymous Coward (User #0) on Thursday, January 1, 1970, at 12:00 a.m.
Score: 5 ( +78% Informative, Insightful, Funny / -22% Off-topic, Overrated )

Yes, that's three properly-formed header lines that are almost fully descriptive instead of two header lines and a big stupid moderation explanation box below the post that poorly spells out a lot of unimportant stuff (like fuzzy non-sensical estimates of the percentages of each moderation type that was applied).

Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[jclast]

How is it that Rockstar and Take2 can be fined for submitting their game to an optional software review board?

Besides, why do we have both M and AO? The ages associated with both are 17 and 18. Drop one and leave the system alone.

I wrote about this for eToychest earlier today, so I won't reiterate my take on the news here, but I will say this:

Parents have access to a wealth of videogame related information. Reviews and screen captures abound on the Internet. It's time for parents to stand up and do their jobs as parents again. If you can't decide for yourself what your child should be doing, maybe you shouldn't be a parent.

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[jm2morri]

It's easy to say that parents should do their job. But that's a cop out. Sure there is a lot of information about a lot of things on the internet. But there's no way to tell what the motivation of that information is. If I'm a gaming company then I'd have a website setup that claims to be a game review board. And I'd supply all the good information about all the games I sell. So that's biased information.

The rating system is intended to be a unbiased review. I would say that its as unbiased as we'll get.

The main point of this whole episode isn't that one company did something bad. It is that one company did something that compromises the whole rating system.

I'm a parent of a 1- and 3-year old with another on the way around Christmas. I haven't had to deal with this type of issue yet, although I'm sure it will come.

As a parent, I'm very busy. I try to do the best I can for my child. But I certainly don't have time to fully play every game my kids will want to play and to find every easter egg to make sure its appropriate. I'm actually not too concerned with just straight nudity--that's a normal occurance in life. But viewing hardcore porn or violence messes with brain chemistry. And with kids' brains developping so much every day it does wreak havoc on their little minds.

But I digress. I'm busy. I can't play every game. So here are my options:

1) Tell my kid he can only play games I approve. It might take me two months to have time to fully preview that new game. Do you think he'll want to wait? Do you think I want to live with the kid while he bugs me every 5 minutes to see if I've had time to review it. I know I wouldn't want to be in that position as a kid.

or

2) Use an external resource to help me with the review. They can review it once and then give me an executive summary. I will certainly come to some conclusions about how this resource aligns with my own thoughts and views. But they will provide some valuable information. The review can be done much quicker and everyone is happy.

Kids (at least my kids, right now) can handle a positive or negative answer. What drives them crazy is having the outcome undecided.

So undermining the rating system is a BIG DEAL. And it should be a big deal to all game manufacturers. Why? Because either parents get help rating the games or sales slow down. Sure there are some parents who don't care and will allow the kids to make these decisions. But the majority are well intentioned. Without the help of an external review board sales will slow down as _every customer_ must now do their own review. With a review board the review can be done once (and more thoroughly) and that is pre-release. So once it is released sales can increase right away.

James.

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[AusIV]

ESRB ratings may be optional, but deceiving ESRB to get a wider audience is still fraud. Take2 could have chosen not to get an ESRB rating, but they chose to, and the FTC believes they deceived ESRB and consequently their customers. I would tend to disagree, since it requires a third party patch to enable, and a third party patch could have created these features as easily as enable ones that are already there (at least as far as the end user is concerned).

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[lucas teh geek]

Besides, why do we have both M and AO? The ages associated with both are 17 and 18. Drop one and leave the system alone.

while I'll agree the M you have in America is stupidly close the the AO (most other countries have M set at around 15), dropping one would be a bad idea. More specifically, dropping AO is a bad Idea.

Here in australia the highest rating we have is M (15+) and all games need ratings. So you know what happens when something cant get an M? It gets banned. It's an extrodinarily dumb system that just encourages internet piracy from places that dont treat their gamers as children

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[jclast]

I would actually advocate either dropping M or dropping AO, but making M the 18+ rating.

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[jclast]

Or you could find an independent review site(s) that you find credible. Or you could play the games with your child. Or you could watch them play the games.

There was no ESRB when I was playing games as a kid. Those games included such things as shooting, shooting bad guys, blood, etc..

How did my parents ensure that I was playing appropriate games without a rating board? They watched me play or sat in the room and read while I played until I was old enough that they decided I could play what I want.

Besides, some games are easy to identify. Any parent that doesn't realize that Grand Theft Auto might have objectionable content seriously needs to think about what grand theft auto is: a crime. Any game named after a crime probably isn't right for a third grader.

And you're just as welcome to your opinion as anybody, but it's nobody's responsibility but yours to ensure that your children are only exposed to things that you think are appropriate. There is absolutely no reason for the government to tell me what is appropriate for my children or you yours.

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[jm2morri]

> There was no ESRB when I was playing games as a kid. Those games included such things as
> shooting, shooting bad guys, blood, etc..

I think we can all agree that the video games of today are a bit different than those played on early video game systems.

> Besides, some games are easy to identify. Any parent that doesn't realize that Grand Theft
> Auto might have objectionable content seriously needs to think about what grand theft auto
> is: a crime. Any game named after a crime probably isn't right for a third grader.

I don't disagree with you on this. There is a lot that is obvious if you just open your eyes.

> And you're just as welcome to your opinion as anybody, but it's nobody's responsibility but
> yours to ensure that your children are only exposed to things that you think are
> appropriate. There is absolutely no reason for the government to tell me what is appropriate
> for my children or you yours.

And I agree with you here as well in terms of responsibility. That doesn't mean that I can't find useful information from various government resources. I'm not beyond learning. But in the end it is my responsibility. The government though has a vested interest in healthy kids being raised so giving resources to parents isn't bad thing.

But my point wasn't that the rating board was a necessity for the parents. It is actually a necessity for the gaming industry. Undermining its authority and reliability will only end up hurting video game sales as parents will have less trust in the system and take longer to review them. It's not that the parents take the rating as gospel. But it is some information that can save some time.

James.

Re:Aren't ESRB ratings optional?

[tehcyder]

viewing hardcore porn or violence messes with brain chemistry

Only if you involve drugs too - my favourite!

False advertising? HOW?!

[WidescreenFreak]

Exactly how was that false advertising? There was a segment in there that was never meant to be used that was exploited by code that was not authorized by Rockstar!

Let's say that I make a family game that's rated "E" that if played as is has nothing offensive, but in the code are some comments with vulgarities in them. Some hacker makes an unauthorized mod that uncomments those comments. Now that vulgarity is available and can be displayed even though it was commented out. Yet I submitted my game to the ESRB, told them what it was about, gave them copies to rate it, and it cleary deserved "E". How can it possibly considered to be "false advertising" that someone without my authorization hacked my code to make a comment seen that was never supposed to be seen?

Sheesh.

'M' was too low?

[FatSean]

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

I think that fits the bill.

drown in jpgs

[mr100percent]

This isn't going to be very effective. What, will Rockstar give them a CD of every jpg image and polygon in the game? Will that be considered "full disclosure"?

Aww, c'mon. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather my children had sex than killed policemen

Why can't they do BOTH? ; )

In defense of the other side...

[dannydawg5]

There is a difference.

Would you rather your son come home and say, "Mom, Dad. I got this girl pregnant." or "Mom, Dad. I got in a fight with so-and-so."

I would say most parents fear the 1st scenario way more. Fights are temporary and can be dealt with via some good old fashion discipline. Illegit kids are FOREVER, and guess who will be paying for them? The PARENTS! Mr. teenager can't afford a kid!

I would also argue that people tend to avoid fights, because pain is not generally fun, but there are raging, hard to ignore, hormones driving us to have sex, and sex IS fun!

A dream come true would be for parents to be able to turn off their kids' hormones until they finish college and have a job. The first step is to eliminate all sexual stimuli, no matter how minor, like "Hot Coffee" and moving everything to an easily bannable .xxx.

Not that it would do any good, probably just make things worse, but I'm just trying to see it from their side. Looking at it this way, I can see how they'd believe sex is worse than violence.

Re:In defense of the other side...

[cr0sh]

Actually, for the scenarios you propose to be on more "equal footing":

"Mom, Dad: I had sex with my girlfriend..." or "Mom, Dad: I was in a fight with my best friend today..."

Or, alternatively:

"Mom, Dad: I got my girlfriend pregnant..." or "Mom, Dad: I shot and killed my best friend today..."

If you look at them this way, I would hope that a parent would see that in each of these cases, the first scenario is much more preferable to the other. One involves pleasure, friendship, and hopefully love. The other involves violence and hatred, and in the last - death. For parents to prefer the violent ending over the non-violent one says a lot about society and the parents. I think you see this, as well.

What is more interesting is why do members of our American society evolve this way? Do they simply forget, and not try to remember, what it was like being younger? Are such thoughts too painful (either because of the experience, or the fact that the experience is in the past and there is no way to change or relive it)? In short, why do most people in our society tend to become more conservative, and lose permissiveness in all areas of life as they grow older? Furthermore, what are the folks WHO DON'T doing different? Is it the level of education? Are those who have view which don't become more conservative more likely to be continuing their education, either formally or on thier own, than those who do become more conservative? In other words, do those who become more conservative as they age tend to have less drive to keep themselves current and aware of the world than those who do?

These and many other questions nag at me. I think about things like this happenning, when I know that many of the people involved saw the craziness with video games (and role playing games, and such) that happenned in the 1980's. I also wonder about what happenned to the kids and progressive people of the 1960's - why did so many of them become just like their parents, and continue the power trip that they struggled against? What made them change...?

Lastly - and this is what scares me the most - am I kidding myself when I think "I am immune"? Will my views, which tend to be very liberal, sometimes radical, and hardly ever mainstream - change to the point where my current self wouldn't recognize my future self? Am I doomed by the same invisible hand which is shoving everyone else around?

Or, is there a way around it?

Re:In defense of the other side...

[kthejoker]

How exactly does getting one's girlfriend pregnant involve violence and hatred?

Hmmm.

[phorm]

How about if a virus ran around goatse'ing the solitaire deck. I wonder how many people would notice and/or complain.

Per item?

[phorm]

The article wasn't quite clear on what "per item" meant. Does it mean per each type of violation occured, or per sold game in violation of each type. One doesn't add up to much, the other could add up to quite a lot.

A Pad Cypher Mod...

[AnomaliesAndrew]

If you use a Pad Cypher on the graphics, you can "unlock" the mature content which was "already there." Essentially it would just be a mod that includes the difference between the standard image and the naked image and applies this change. IMHO, you're just unlocking the mature content that was already there.

I know, that's taking it a bit far... but really. If you can't get to the data without modifying the game (by whatever means) IN VIOLATION of the user agreement, then it should be considered arbitrary data.

Considering that it was impossible to invoke this via the standard version of the game, which is what was sold, not the mod, then I believe the rating was appropriate.

The ESRB should wake up and publish to concerned parents: "This rating does not apply to third party modifications which have not been reviewed by the ESRB." Instead, they engage in a witch-hunt.

A witch! Witch! Burrrrrrrrrrn!!!
- Andy

OT: article tags

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Are there ANY articles lately that someone, somewhere isn't tagging "stupid"? Kind of seems to defeat the purpose if one wants to filter based on a meaningful tag...

And are you REALLY going to waste a mod point to mod this as "Offtopic", even though it's already labeled as "OT"?

Re:OT: article tags

[PhotoBoy]

I suppose it depends, did the tagger mean to say the article is stupid or the people who made such a fuss about some simulated sex are stupid? I'd have thought the latter. Personally I think hysteria would have made a good tag... ;)

Re:OT: article tags

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Well sure -- but it's not just this article. It's doesn't seem as bad today, but I swear for the last two weeks over half the articles have been getting tagged as 'stupid'...

Re:OT: article tags

[PhotoBoy]

You're right, I was just scrolling down the games section and at least half are tagged as stupid. I guess we'll need to be able to moderate tags next!

Re:OT: article tags

[Shai-kun]

Perhaps over half the articles are, in fact, stupid. God knows there's enough stupid to go around.

Re:OT: article tags

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Perhaps; stupidity does abound, after all. However, my point is mostly that when a tag gets used that liberally, it becomes pretty much useless as a filtering mechanism.

The ESRB just became a regulatory commission

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand. If Rockstar will be fined by the federal government, in relation to an ESRB rating, this is absolutely no different than congress passing a content law. So, at this point, anyone who says anything along the lines of "It's either the ESRB regulating content, or the legislative branch will pass laws to regulate content" loses just such an argument. The ESRB still works on an individual basis, but if they object to content, it goes before the FTC and then to either a contractual-settlement or a lawsuit.

The ESRB just became a federal regulatory commission.

That is just plain AWESOME.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

body blah blah

TTWO Stock

[wonkavader]

TTWO is only up 1.5%. I'm kind of surprised.

Re:Question...

[symbolic]

How can a parent even make that kind of comment when they don't even know what's in the game to begin with? Hasn't a big part of the problem been parents who completely ignore the ratings anyway?

On the other hand...

[Belial6]

On the other hand, any kid can go and rent the PG movie Shrek 2. The movie where the Princes walk in on another character giving himself a blow job in public. This was a movie that was targeted directly at children.

Nice Sig

[Dareth]

"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."

Jeopardy Mode: Question: What is happening to FEMA as we speak?

Actually it isn't this simple.

[Simon Donkers]

I recently looked into the Hot Coffee mod and in september last year the ESRB started looking into modding. I'm not sure what resulted into this but the ESRB wanted that games need to be rated based upon how the game could be after modding. For more info try for instance this podcast around 50:45 minutes.

Not that I doubt that if they have any sense they will do this as this means any open source app or any changable game needs to be rated under the same type:

Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

That kinda ruins the entire idea of ratings.

They must report all content, huh?

[blitzsieg]

Hmm, what does this kind of sound like.....Oh yeah, Oblivion.

Bethesda submitted a 60 page document detailing the violence in Oblivion to the ESRB and it got rated T for teen. Then the nude female patch hit (3rd party), and the game gets changed to M for Mature.

Lord knows that it's ok for 13 year olds to see flaming corpses hanging from nooses in the depths of hell but not breasts.

The point is that the ESRB has recently made a huge mistake when having a detailed report of violence in a game. I'm not 100% positive that they would rate the next GTA game correctly after the Oblivion fiasco.

That depends on what you mean by the word "is".

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's an old joke, but it's still funny.

Re:That depends on what you mean by the word "is".

[donutello]

You're the only one who got my reference :)

Hot coffee mod movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know what the excitement is about?

http://files.gtanet.com/gtasa/videos/hotcoffee.wmv

no deception

[Anonymous Coward]

donutello (88309) writes: What they can't do is deceive the rating board about the content. This is the Federal Trade Commission. Deceptive trade practices fall properly within their purview.

From the DVDs I've seen, when viewing extras (not the actual movie) there is a warning presented to the viewer that states something like "the following content was not rated by the MPAA ratings board", yet the DVD sleeve states a given rating. Basically, DVDs are regularly sold with the movie rating and not a rating based off the entire contents, otherwise every DVD would be either (1) unrated or (2) cost twice as much.

DVDs also can be laid out like this:
Disney movie scene #1
Disney movie scene #2
Disney movie scene #3
Disney movie scene #4
Explicit pornography
Disney movie scene #5
Disney movie scene #6

Since the DVD player is instructed to skip between 4 and 5, you'll never see the hidden content. However, the hidden content is technically in the sequence so apparently this means that it is part of the movie now.

and therefore not distributed

[anti-drew]

Most brick-and-mortar retailers would probably refuse to distribute an unrated console game.

The console-makers would also have the option of refusing to release a game that isn't ESRB-rated. I've heard that Sony won't make AO game discs, so maybe that's a requirement already.

Re:and therefore not distributed

[networkBoy]

The console-makers would also have the option of refusing to release a game that isn't ESRB-rated

Ok, that I did not think of, and could prove to be an issue.
-nB

Where's the argument?

[mer1in]

GTA: San Andreas was rated M, for mature, indicating to someone who knows nothing of the franchise that there might be some mature content in there somewhere. Which, aside from Hot Coffee, there was a plethora of. If the purchaser went as far to turn the box over and read the back, they may have become aware of the ESRB's more in depth breakdown of the game, which along with "Blood & Gore" "Intense Violence" "Strong Language" and "Use of Drugs" included a "Strong Sexual Content" warning. If they went on to the read the description of the game by Rockstar, the words "Gangs" "Drugs & Corruption" "Dealers" and "Gangbangers" all in the first pargraph might have indicated to someone that this is not an apropriate game for children. Which without all that reading they could have denounced from the "17+" on both the front and back of the box. If a parent was still questioning the apropriatness of the game for their child, 5 mintues of research on the internet would have immediately removed any chance of their kids ever coming within 100 ft. of GTA again. Now yes, it is quite pheasable that older siblings, friends, careless sales clerks, etc. may have helped a few children obtain copies of the game, but the entire argument over the mod seems to be primarily about parents being misinformed. It seems pretty unlikely that had Rockstar disclosed the unnaccessible content to the ESRB that the game's rating would have really changed that much. It was an unrealistic sex mini game, which I think is declared quite adequately by "Strong Sexual Content." They may have even added a "This game includes virtual sex." warning, but it seems pretty obvious that none of these parents read the box anyways! And now everyone who's child went and willingly hacked their game to access this is outraged. I think the ESRB should be outraged that so many people pay absolutely no head to their warnings. If the game was rated AO, I'll bet just as many children would have been playing it. Because I can see informed parents saying: "Don't worry kids, its okay (hell, its even FUN) to kill police officers, kill your friends, sell, buy and use drugs & alcohol, shoot prostitutes, acquire weapons, terrorize civillians, steal cars, damage property, use racial slurs and live a life of reckless abandon, but it is NOT okay to have sex. ESPECIALLY with your girlfriend." Even if you argue that all the killing and swearing and drugs, etc. takes place in a fantasy world, so does the sex, and at that, only if you go out of your way to knowingly activate and engage in it. Kind of like the patch that revelaed the nudity uner the blurs in The Sims, except that game promoted living a good, happy, healthy life, so when people realized, it got the "Oh, its just a patch, not even part of the game!" treatment. But when parents realize exactly what this GTA game they bought their child is, and they think "Holy sh*t! What did I buy!" all that they can really fall back on is the "Well we are outraged that we didn't know about this code." Gimmie a break. I think it is these people's parenting strategy that needs to be revised, not the ESRB's rating system, or the code that Rockstar chooses to write. Take a little bit of interest in your children's life, and maybe things like this can be avoided all together.

Re:Where's the argument?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tru.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ti cket_to_hell

you're actually correct

[anti-drew]

My understanding of the ESRB ratings is that they're done with volunteered video clips from the maker which are supposed to be representative samples of gameplay. They don't actually play the game.

I think in general the number of games released vs the board size makes it impractical for them to test actual gameplay. With 50+ hrs of content in a game, they need someone to pick out some clips to summarize the gameplay. In a voluntary system, it actually makes sense for this to be the game authors.

What the ESRB has been missing is penalties for (deliberately or accidentally) picking bad, non-representative video clips. This is a step in the right direction.

Re:you're actually correct

[KDR_11k]

I hate to point it out every time but the USK does require playing through the games (with cheats if necessary) and they manage to deal with the volume of games thrown at them (they say they tested 2686 games last year). I suppose you can play through Oblivion much faster with invulnerability and a walkthrough. The problem with video clips would be that not only is it lacking context (you don't know how much player choice there is, if the player is encouraged to kill everything in sight or specific minorities that is worse than merely giving the option to kill and allowing the player to progress without killing anyone), it relies on the judgement of the clip producer who might judge something as the worst in the game while the ratings board considers something not present in the clip worse.

Li'l Bastard Solitaire Mod

[Bowling Moses]

A modification I'd really like to see is one that removes a card at random from the Solitaire deck. Even better would be virus or malware whatever that will do this to existing installs without the user's knowledge, or at least not until they lose a few dozen games in a row but finally find themselves about to win but are missing the six of spades or something.

Re:Li'l Bastard Solitaire Mod

[catprog]

My brother actualy got 2 cards that were the same.

Not all that crazy really

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no so much what the content was but that there was not full disclosure to the ESRB upon rating -- that is the point the FTC and the ESRB are trying to make. Rockstar made it worse by lying about the situation in their first statements after the incident.
I know it is silly to look at the rating M and the unexpected content, but look at it this way...
If you don't have full disclosure, or public trust in it breaks down, the VOLUNTARY ratings system becomes unusable, and what do you think may happen after that? Actual regulation, something which is not wanted by the industry nor the government. Rockstar is just put up as an example to push this point to the rest of the industry.

Check me on this...

[Gonzodoggy]

GTA is already rated "M" for mature, right? Unless there's a higher rating than that from the ESRB (XXX?),
what difference does it make? Parents shouldn't be buying this game for their kids if it's rated that way. The content shouldn't/doesn't matter at that level. And if the parents are buying it for their kids, they should shut the frell up and stop whining

WOOF!!
Gonzodoggy

Re:Check me on this...

[{tele}machus_*1]

There is a more restrictive rating than "M," and it's Adults Only "AO." And that AO rating is what the ESRB has retroactively slapped on the original version of GTASA.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

FTC vs. FCC

[C_Insano]

Just to set everyone straight, as I've seen a lot of misrepresentation so far:

FTC: Federal Trade Commision: Makes sure companies don't lie about their products

FCC: Federal Communications Commision: Makes sure broadcasted signals (radio, TV) comply with the law (decency, etc.)

The ruling in this case is from the FTC, so has no bearing on decency of the game, sex, violence, whatever. So, stop referencing Howard Stern, stop saying that the game was already indecent, and so on. That's not what this is about. Not strictly anyway...I'm sure this started from the decency slant, only puched to the FTC because there was no other way, and someone still had an axe to grind.

The FTC fined them due to misrepresentign what was in the game (false advertising). The fine was small like others have said so far) probably because it wasn't an intentional deception. It was more along the lines of content was created, they decided not to release it, but only did a half-assed job of removing it.

ESRB are doing it too

[PromANJ]

I just unlocked this, all I had to do was run a Photoshop macro that rotated stuff around a bit. http://web.telia.com/~u48508900/esrb_cp.jpg