Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
featuring gay BDSM cards, can I get Vista rated M?
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
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?
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"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.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
""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
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"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."
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.
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.
e2 | LJ
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.