Slashdot Mirror


'Hot Coffee' Scandal Officially Resolved

kukyfrope writes "Take-Two Interactive today announced that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) inquiry concerning hidden sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has formally closed. All outstanding matters pending before the FTC have been settled and no penalties or fines have been assessed. Although Take-Two was not fined, the company will be subject to civil penalties of $11,000 for future violations. 'We look forward to putting this behind us and focusing on what we do best - creating videogames,' said Take-Two President and Chief Executive Officer Paul Eibeler."

19 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Problems like this are easily solved by krell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when, if someone does not like what is in a game, they simply refuse to play it and move on (no screaming, no lawsuits, no complaints to the government).

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by ElleyKitten · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This was a "truth-in-labeling" violation. Parents thought they knew what they were buying for their kids, and may have been okay with the violence but not the sexuality of the "hot coffee" scene.
      Yes, killing hookers is fine for young'uns, but consensual sex? Corrupt their poor minds!

      Any kid who's not able to handle the hot coffee is too young to handle the rest of the game. Not to mention, they'll find more explicit porn just looking for the patch to unlock it.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    2. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by krell · · Score: 5, Funny

      " I bet that you would complain if the folks at Mars replaced the peanuts in your Snickers bar with dried cockroach larvae without changing the label"

      That's the type of analogy that assumes that the non-"Hot Coffee" content was wonderful and very different from the "Hot Coffee" content. How about an analogy where you buy a candy bar labelled "Loaded with Mouse Feces" and complain because you find a hamster-turd in it?

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's true. And any child who's smart enough to unlock it on his own is probably smart enough to get access other porn.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    4. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Parents thought they knew what they were buying for their kids, and may have been okay with the violence but not the sexuality of the "hot coffee" scene.

      From esrb.org:

      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.

      ADULTS ONLY
      Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

      So, parents bought San Andreas for their 17-year-old kids, thinking it contained sexual content, but not graphic sexual content...? Or perhaps they bought it for their 12-year-old kids, not giving a damn what it contained as long as it shut the little sods up for a while? How many parents actually know what the little symbols on the game mean anyway?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by ScottLindner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're all right, but at the end of the day a parent needs to be able to make informed decisions to raise *their* child the way *they* want to and not leave the Internet to do it for them.

      --
      Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
    6. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by bonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. If I want to raise my kid to be a violent sociopathic gangster with no respect for human life or property, that should be my right. And I'll be DAMNED if someone tries to go behind my back and teach my kid that consensual sex with a female is acceptable.

      --
      I hope to die peacefully in my sleep like grandpa, not screaming like his passengers.
    7. Re:Problems like this are easily solved by fonetik · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...to raise *their* child the way *they* want to and not leave the Internet to do it for them."

      No one wants the internet to raise their child... that's what the TV is for.

  2. they do that best? by chrismcdirty · · Score: 4, Funny
    'We look forward to putting this behind us and focusing on what we do best - creating videogames'
    I thought what they did best was create controversy.
    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    1. Re:they do that best? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yeah. And I daresay controversy like this only makes kids want San Andreas all the more.

      Why not just rate every damn thing 'AO'? Certainly in the UK, GTA and similar games are rated '18' just for the violence, so 'Hot Coffee' wasn't a problem. Had it been included fully in the game, it would still have been an '18'.

      There's no way a GTA game should be aimed at children. What's the quarrel between an 'M', which I gather means '17', and an 'AO' which means '18'? Shame to lose out on the seventeen-year-old market, I suppose, but it would free Rockstar to put what the hell they liked into the game without worrying about whether some deleted scene will resurface and cause trouble.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:they do that best? by gregbains · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IIRC an AO will not be sold in shops like WalMart who prefer to keep such games away from their "good family morals" business, losing out on the WalMart market is a bigger loss than just losing out on the 17 market

    3. Re:they do that best? by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Funny

      Retailers not 17 year olds, retailers won't stock it on the shelves if it's AO. Why?, because in some twisted marketing mindspace things nasty enough for mature teenagers only (graphic violence and aluded to sex) is credible, where-as adult only items (boobs) are the kiss of death to your credibility as a store.
      My wife sometimes wonders if she's a bad parent because she would prefer her son to be surfing porn than sites like this. Personally, I think seeing sex is a whole lot heathier than violence. Hmm, in that light, the 'Hot Coffee' is the most acceptable part of that game ...

    4. Re:they do that best? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Retailers not 17 year olds, retailers won't stock it on the shelves if it's AO. Why?, because in some twisted marketing mindspace things nasty enough for mature teenagers only (graphic violence and aluded to sex) is credible, where-as adult only items (boobs) are the kiss of death to your credibility as a store.

      Hmm. Interesting.

      Very well... when the time comes to release GTA: TOKYO 2050 or whatever the next version might be, release the FULL-BLOODED version which Rockstar actually want to put out, and also the PARENT-SAFE version for Wal-Mart, in which we replace all the sex scenes with, oh, our hero dancing happily with Barney the Dinosaur or something like that.

      Then put up the patch to convert PARENT-SAFE up to FULL-BLOODED on ftp. Like the Carmageddon guys did back in the day, when censors forced them to replace pedestrians with green-blooded zombies. Back then, every PC games magazine put the Carmageddon blood patch on every cover disk for months, for the benefit of non-wired readers. I'm quite sure the same would happen with GTA.

      If you make it absolutely clear that the patch is AO content and will convert your wholesome, ultra-violent GTA game to a sexually deviant, ultra-violent GTA game, and that it's for those who accidentally bought the wrong version, you should be in the clear. There's no sex on the disk bought by the parents in the shop - so they knew what they were buying. There's plenty of sex on the later download, but hey - if you install AO patches, you expect AO content, right?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:they do that best? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I think seeing sex is a whole lot heathier than violence.

      I have one word for you sir, Bukkake.

      I'd much, much rather explain to a child why the bad man on TV shot someone than explain why all of those bad men are glunking all over some poor woman's face.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  3. bad off topic joke by k3v0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    what does Eric Clapton have in common with coffee?

    They both suck without cream

  4. More evidence that sex is expensive by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Interesting


    From the last line in the article:

    The removal of San Andreas from most retailers' shelves followed by a re-rating of the title resulted in a loss of nearly $25 million.

    Ouch!

  5. Re:big deal? by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Funny
    Even so, I feel it ruined that inoocent and wholesome feeling you get when lighting prostitutes and innocent bystanders ablaze.

    I hear ya, buddy. I remember when Grand Theft Auto was a family game. We'd all sit around the television, cheering each other on. I remember Gran'pa screaming "Way to go Billy! Twice in the head and drop the gun, that's my boy!"

    But after Hot Coffee? I just don't know anymore.
    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  6. Bullsh*t! It was NOT a violation of ANYTHING! by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am so sick and tired of hearing that this is a "truth-in-labeling" violation! This was nothing more than a "protect the children" witch hunt!

    The segment in question was included but was never meant to be accessed! It took someone else's hack, which might or might not have been in violation of the game's EULA, to release it. Therefore, the accessibility to that whole section of code was not authorized by Take Two or Rockstar. Yet they were made the scapegoat in nothing more that a politically-charged witch hunt. There was abosultely NO REASON for Take Two/Rockstar to disclose that information because they had NO EXPECTATION that it would ever been seen by any customer.

    For example, let's say that I included the following type of code in a huge program that I'm writing. (No comments about the Perl. I'm just making an example.)

    $ESRB = "Neutral";
    if ($ESRB eq "Evil") {
    print "The ESRB is a bunch of fucking, holier-than-thou, moralistic morons.\n";
    print "And you're mother's ugly, too.\n";
    }

    Obviously, that code is never meant to be seen because $ESRB is being explicity set to bypass the if statement. So, I compile the whole program, with the code that was never meant to be seen, get a "T" rating for the whole program, and release the program. In my EULA is an explicit statement that no one is allowed to modify the code.

    Then some moron sees it in the compiled code and releases an unauthorized hack to change $ESRB to "Evil". Suddenly, there's a big bruhaha because it should have been "M" due to the language of the code.

    Now the ESRB and Thompson are on my case for not revealing the code that was in there. WHY? The code was never meant to be seen - not even as an Easter egg. There is no reasonable expectation of me letting the ESRB know that the code was in there because there was no reasonable expectation that it would ever be seen. Someone went in without my permission and modified the code to see something that was never meant to be seen.

    There is no reason why Take Two/Rockstar should be held accountable for the release of something that was never meant to be available in the first place. This was nothing close to a "truth-in-labeling" violation. It was a do-gooder, "for the sake of the children", witch hunt. Rockstar took the high road and just let it slide, which was probably the best PR they could have done, but they were nothing more than a scapegoat.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  7. Uhhh except all games do that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the time games leave assets in they don't use. It's a problem that MS is actually working to solve with the Xbox 360 dev kits (to save space). You make an asset for a game, maybe a level, model, texture, or even whole mini game that just doesn't make it in to the final product. However you don't remove it since you don't know what else relies on the presence of that, and since space usually isn't short.

    My bet is they made the Hot Coffee game, realised it'd get them an AO rating, and so cut it. Pure and simple.

    You can see a similar thing with Civ 4. There's mods that will add some "lost wonders." These are wonders with full videos, info and everything, they are fully produced. Basically, Firaxis planned on using them, but then cut them later, I believe for game balance reasons. However they didn't bother to remove the assets so witha bit of XML and LUA modificaiton, they can go back in the game.