'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."

Comments

Problems like this are easily solved

[krell]

...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).

Re:Problems like this are easily solved

[ElleyKitten]

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.

Re:Problems like this are easily solved

[krell]

" 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?

Re:Problems like this are easily solved

[digitrev]

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.

Re:big deal?

[oahazmatt]

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.

Re:they do that best?

[gregbains]

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

Bullsh*t! It was NOT a violation of ANYTHING!

[WidescreenFreak]

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.

Re:they do that best?

[Lord Kano]

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