FTC and Rockstar Settle Hot Coffee Dispute 295
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."
$11,000 per item??? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2)
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2)
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
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2)
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??? (Score:2)
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2)
-nB
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, $11,000 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow, $11,000 (Score:2, Funny)
$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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow, $11,000 (Score:2)
Re:Wow, $11,000 (Score:2)
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 sale
Wow... (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 alloca
If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
That's just because you've not used the mod yet... ; )
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2)
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 th
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, they're still getting the nudity descriptor, but I think that was more of a thing to get people to shut up and
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ga
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2)
Because the job of censoring video games naturally attracts empty headed imbeciles?
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 b
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
Re:If I produce a mod for Solitaire (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hmmm. (Score:2)
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because fraud is involved (Score:2)
parents - think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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! (Score:2)
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
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
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
Well, there's this thing that we in the business call "False Advertising"...
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:3, Funny)
I'd rather my children have sex with dead poli...uhh nevermind...
Re:parents - think of the children! (Score:2)
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! (Score:2)
I don't want to meet these people who think that human reproduction is worse than murder... who would think like that?
Entirely the Fault of the Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
One can only assume they don't breastfeed.
Re:Entirely the Fault of the Parents (Score:2)
$11 K ? (Score:2, Insightful)
this is absurd
I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm still confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone being able to turn the content on proves otherwise.
Re:I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I'm still confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Not when you have to run a third party program, with no affiliation to Rockstar, it doesn't.
A victory? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, it wasn't a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
*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.
It's not about the sex. It's about the lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This had NOTHING to do with SEX. (Score:2)
Re:No, actually, it wasn't a big deal. (Score:2)
I guess that means no more Easter Eggs (Score:2)
Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
*sigh* Where's my caffeine? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not that different, though. (Score:2)
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 th
Re:They're not that different, though. (Score:2)
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:2)
Still an oppressive regime either way.
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:2)
False advertising? HOW?! (Score:2)
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
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You are
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:2)
My GOD - just imagine!
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:2)
I don't think they made any false statements at all. The game, as it was sold to people, deserved the rating it had. Tha
Re:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:2)
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 di
Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 willful
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 y
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:2)
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 responsibilit
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference in this
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:2)
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 wa
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:2)
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 ha
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:2)
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a right in the same sense that you have a right to expect that UL approved appliances are
Re:Whatever happened to caveat emptor? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but then it's an issue for tort suit, not for agency regulation. Without getting into
Glad the FTC is watching over (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Disclose ALL content, eh? (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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
Re:Disclose ALL content, eh? (Score:2)
And make sure it's all expressed in octal codes.
Aren't ESRB ratings optional? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [etoychest.org] 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? (Score:2, Insightful)
The rating system is intended to be a unbiased review. I would say that its as unbiased as we'll
drown in jpgs (Score:2)
Per item? (Score:2)
Where's the argument? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Problem (+5, Insightful) (Score:2, Informative)
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:Fair enough. (Score:2)
Accounting services provided courtesy MPAA and RIAA! Oh and sorry, that was BILLION.