Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PlayStation Home And Porn - No Problems

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the match-made-in-dallas dept.

Sony 69

Via Eurogamer, a post on the 'semi-official' ThreeSpeech blog essentially saying that Sony doesn't see porn as an issue for the upcoming Home PS3 service. Sony's Phil Harrison was on the other end of the blog's questions, and after reminding us that avatars won't be able to interact, it will be easy to blacklist people, and they will have lots of filters in place: "Well I'm disappointed that you would use those as the first questions ... I think Home should be used for a much wider and more beneficial scope than [porn], but I think that people can express their creativity inside Home in a wide variety of ways and it's not necessarily for us to dictate what that should be."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Porn + vibrating controllers? (1, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435421)

Hot damn.

Re:Porn + vibrating controllers? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18435561)

PS3 doesn't have vibrating controllers. It's lose-lose with this console.

Re:Porn + vibrating controllers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18435627)

I heard the european version comes with a giant dildo to ream yourself with

Don't you mean peg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18436037)

Don't you mean peg?

Re:Porn + vibrating controllers? (1)

trdrstv (986999) | about 7 years ago | (#18447167)

PS3 doesn't have vibrating controllers. It's lose-lose with this console.

Right. You want the Wii instead. It's the only system with a one handed vibrating controller. Ideal for Porn...

To quote family guy (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435539)

"N'uh, it's my turn with the sex box, and her name is Sony"

Re:To quote family guy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18436407)

Its the simpsons acually, you call yourself a slashdotter, LOSE A LIFE WINNER.

Re:To quote family guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18436649)

Actually, the quote is from Family Guy. It is from the episode "A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas".

Re:To quote family guy (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | about 7 years ago | (#18448009)

It also happened to be the best episode of Family Guy that was ever produced, yet it somehow got the lowest ratings of the initial run.

Wow. I'm impressed. (3, Insightful)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435663)

I think that this is an incredibly mature, forward-thinking thing to say, coming from the inherently egotistical corporate giant. While it sounds like I just like my pr0nz0rz, which may or may not be true (you, the reader of this drivel, decide!), I honestly do believe that censorship, even in pornography, is the exact opposite to being beneficial to society as a whole. I'm all for cordoning off the areas and age-checking, however.

That said, on a completely unrelated note, apparently Firefox doesn't underline the word "pr0nz0rz" as being a spelling mistake. Hmm.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1, Offtopic)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435691)

Any word with a number in it is marked as not being a spelling mistake.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (0, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435777)

Last I checked Firefox doesn't correct spelling mistakes. Google toolbar does though.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (0, Offtopic)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435821)

Check again, bub. Firefox spell checks since 2.0

Check vs. correct (0, Offtopic)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435981)

heinousjay wrote:

shaitland wrote:

Last I checked Firefox doesn't correct spelling mistakes. Google toolbar does though.
Check again, bub. Firefox spell checks since 2.0
Last I corrected, "to check" and "to correct" were different verbs, so you're both "technically checked; the best kind of checked."

Or something like that.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435887)

> Last I checked Firefox doesn't correct spelling mistakes.

No, but it flags errors with a red dotted underline - you can right click for alternatives, or add the word to a dictionary.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

malsdavis (542216) | about 7 years ago | (#18436901)

Now if only they could get a spelling suggestion system which doesn't suck, that would be good.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of Firefox's spell-checker coming up with ridiculous suggestions when I've only mis-spelt a single letter or two. I know Microsoft Office acquired the patent for the only decent spell-checker algorithm and Firefox doesn't have the capability to do a funky statistical analysis like Google, but surely they can come up with a spell checker which isn't almost completely useless!

Oh well, Rant over.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

powerlord (28156) | about 7 years ago | (#18438939)

I know Microsoft Office acquired the patent for the only decent spell-checker algorithm

Just as an FYI Safari seems to do a decent job of correcting spelling also.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

Drantin (569921) | about 7 years ago | (#18439243)

So long as it marks the misspelled words, it isn't completely useless.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

malsdavis (542216) | about 7 years ago | (#18439373)

I suppose it is called a spell-checker after all and it does do that well enough. It's the spell-correcting facilities which leave a lot to be desired.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436185)

That's a little silly, considering how most acronyms are considered spelling mistakes. Like NAND, DAC, AGP, PCI, etc.

Re:Wow. I'm impressed. (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436291)

NAND isn't an acronym, it doesn't stand for anything. It's just capitalized because logical operators are usually capitalized. NOT, AND, and OR aren't acronyms either.

Oh cmon more typing? (1)

DavidKlemke (1048264) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435681)

So now I have to have to make up for the lack of avatar interaction with much hotter sexes chat? Geeze Sony way to move more work onto the consumer!

Sony shouldn't care (3, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435773)

I think Sony's best bet is to not really worry about what individuals are doing on their service in terms of porn, and just make sure it's possible for a parent to fully lock out their kids from the home service if they so desire. Trying to monitor what everyone's doing isn't realistic without taking out just about every way that individuals can customize their "homes." And once you've done that, then what's the point?

They should just not care, and let people make out of it what they want. Sure, it'll probably end up just like Second Life with better graphics, but pretty much anything with significant user created content is 95% crap, and a large percentage porn.

Maybe all Sony's going for is a glorified chat room. If that's the case, then I don't see the initial excitement about it lasting much beyond release. If they're instead trying to tie in to more of the myspace/flickr/blogging mindset, then they're going to have to give people some free reign to be creative. And yes, that means there's going to be a lot of people trying to do dirty things. But you know what, give the customers what they want, and they're going to be more willing to give you money.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18435939)

"Maybe all Sony's going for is a glorified chat room"

Glorified chat room? Obviously you haven't taken the time to understand the scope of Sony's PS3 Home.

Home will be:

* A free persistent online world
* Custom player avatars
* A personal space for every PS3 owner where their own PS3 becomes a streaming media server for everyone who enters their space
* A platform for third party developers to build custom 3d spaces with 3d models, artwork, and streaming videos of their games
* A platform for third party developers to sell, market, and distribute games, demos, and a variety of items for people's avatars and personal spaces
* Custom spaces for clan meetings for getting together before and after matches, screenshots and streaming video of the clan's favorite gaming moments
* A place for brick and mortar shops to setup up custom 3d stores inside of Home
* Small social minigames like we've seen already
* Larger scale games that take place within Home - Sony is providing the tools and APIs for developers to easily build custom versions of existing games or brand new ones to run inside of Home
* A streaming media service - streaming movies and audio with the ability to buy or download those movies you see while inside of Home to your PS3

There is more that Sony has hinted at in interviews, but those are the things we know right now.

Sony has been working on the concepts behind home for a decade now. And they have been actively working on the Home engine and toolsets for over two years. Home is gigantic in scale and we have only just seen the bare framework of what will come.

There is a good FAQ here that gives an overview of what Sony is providing to third parties to leverage and target Home:

http://www.scedev.net/home/ [scedev.net]

Re:Sony shouldn't care (1, Funny)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436505)

In other words, it's a ripoff of Second Life, which is a glorified chat room.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (3, Informative)

joystickgenie (913297) | about 7 years ago | (#18437963)

Except with way less features and customizability.

In second life anyone can make models/animations, scripts, and textures upload them and use them however they want. In home users can only upload textures and can only display them in their "personal space". The only people who can develop models and scripts or anything that can occur in public space are 1st and 3rd party developers.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (2, Interesting)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436511)

Yeah, I've read all that. But I don't think it's going to work. Almost everything you've listed there has been solved in simpler and more convenient ways already on the web.

If this place is basically just a big online marketplace dressed up as some sort of graphically rich virtual shopping mall, I don't think consumers are going to flock to it the way they hoped. When I want to spend money on stuff, I want to find what I'm looking for, enter my credit card, and get whatever I'm buying as quickly as possible. Having to run my virtual avatar through a store and window shop to find what I want might be fun the first time, but it's not something that is going to keep me coming back for more.

"Persistent Worlds" are not made interesting just by the fact that they're persistent. They're made interesting by the fact that the players can seriously modify what's going on. It allows creativity, showing off, and hopefully leads towards collaboration. I don't care what sony is providing third parties, unless that third party is anyone who owns a PS3. Because otherwise it's just another way for companies to shove their wares in front of me, and the internet already provides me with lots of easy, efficient, and varied ways to shop.

If they're going to provide some real creative opportunities, then that's awesome, it could be a lot of fun. But my original point was that if they provide those opportunities, lots of people are going to find ways to turn it into porn/sex/etc. You can't keep that from happening without either locking down the content creation to the point where it doesn't really exist, or having moderators constantly policing everything that's made. Both of those will drive away the creative types that would find such a thing interesting in the first place.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18436969)

"Yeah, I've read all that. But I don't think it's going to work."

Of course "it's going to work" you tool. It's working right now. Home is already live for internal developers and third party developers already have access to the dev tools which are incredibly easy to use to generate content for Home. It is simply a matter of using your existing game assets or new assets and tagging things like surfaces for video or images. Developers are already in the process of building their custom spaces.

Very soon both third party developers and some PS3 users will be downloading and running the beta. So only a fool would try to claim Home isn't going to work. The response to Home has been insane.

Looking at your post history it is clear you are just a console troll trying to hide it a thin layer of feigned interest in the service. Go play minigames with your Wii.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (0, Troll)

cowscows (103644) | about 7 years ago | (#18437383)

I didn't mean it wouldn't work technically, I mean I'm not convinced that it's going to work in terms of customers really getting into it.

And don't call me a troll and crap on my posting history if you can't even be bother to log in and expose your own. That's just silly. I don't make any effort to hide the fact that I'm a Nintendo fan, but I'm a bigger fan of video games in general. I owned and enjoyed all three consoles last generation, I have a PC that I purchased for the sole purpose of playing games. Sadly I'm not in college anymore, I have to spend the better part of my days working for a living, and I have fiscal responsibilities now.

Taking those realities of my life into account, Nintendo's strategy works really well with how I can fit gaming into my life. And the fact that they can do it all for cheap is excellent too. Sony, on the other hand, in both their words and their deeds so far in regards to the PS3 seem to have sprinted even harder than before down the hardcore gamer path, and their higher ups have been kind of dicks about it too. I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. I never gave MS the benefit of the doubt because windows has caused me so much anguish in the past. I've been giving the 360 some serious consideration lately though.

I would love for Sony to make something awesome. I would love for Nintendo to feel more pressure to develop the online capabilities of the Wii. I even like Second Life, so if Sony could take that sort of idea forwards, I'd be fascinated. But until Sony convinces me that this home stuff is going to live up to some of the hype, I'm not going to get too excited.

Re:Sony shouldn't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18436717)

Wow, fanboy modbombing...

Sounds like some fanboys are feeling a bit threatened by Home.

Sony will care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18440025)

Check out Phantasy Star Universe sometime. All you need is someone with a connected xbox 360 and a live gold account. DL and fire up the demo, goto the 1st planet. Ascii porn in thought balloons. And it's ALL over the place. It's kind funny. But I can see how sensitive types wouldn't think so. And it's so ubiquitious a blacklist is pretty much a joke of a way to control it. Sony by failing to address it up front, is going to force itself into an impossible comprimise later on. People are what they are, particularly when they're young males raised in a culture that encourages pushing buttons and boundries in an enviroment without consequences. This happy-sunshine mode of thinking is how we got webpages that could format harddrives.

Re:Sony will care. (1)

cowscows (103644) | about 7 years ago | (#18444373)

I completely agree, except that I don't really see a workable solution for Sony. How do you allow players to interact in any way without a whole bunch of them doing dirty stuff? The best you can do is have it very strongly policed by real people (moderators), which is expensive and annoying to the player base.

Then consider the fact that Sony's console is strongly marketed towards the hardcore gamer, which is that young male demographic which is mostly likely to want to introduce porn into the system, and most likely to react negatively to policing by Sony.

Even if you're not interested in any porn content, the limitations that would be necessary to truly prevent it would limit what you can do.

To rephrase the question: (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435781)

Will there be parental locks and a "net nanny" service available for concerned parents?

This should have been part of Sony's basic market research.. it's a real need that many parents have, no matter what you might think of it.

Re:To rephrase the question: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18436009)

There is going to be no adult oriented content in any public space on Home.

However, personal spaces are getting their content from each person's personal PS3. So if you have have adult content on your PS3 it can be used as a media source for your personal space. The only way you can enter and view someone else's personal space is to be directly invited by that person. So unless you actively seek out someone to invite you into their personal space and watch their streaming porn, it isn't going to be an issue.

Sony has said that they will have moderators in the public spaces to make sure no abusive or inappropriate things go on much like GMs in MMORPGs.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

amuro98 (461673) | about 7 years ago | (#18437055)

Yeah, moderators and filters. We all know how well THAT works, right?

I can think of dozens of examples where filtering is going to go awry.

(3v3n \/\/|th0ut l33t-sp34k, d00d!)

Re:To rephrase the question: (2, Insightful)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436027)

Here's a hint: If your kids are still so young that they need this kind of supervision, DON'T give them unsupervised access to on-line social networks, or the internet at all. You are the parent. It is YOUR responsibility. Don't want them surfing for porn? Don't let them surf the internet unsupervised! Because if you think Net Nanny et al are infalliable, boy are you in for a surprise. Gaming is an ADULT hobby. If you are letting your child have unsupervised access to Multiplayer Online games, you are giving tacit approval to whatever anyone wants to put out there. Your Responsibility, Your Problem. Not Mine, Not Society's.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436247)

Way to totally miss the point. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters, to Sony's bottom line, what the bible belt thinks. You can't dictate to people what they should want from a product.

Basically you've just outlined why the PS3 is not something the majority of parents in the US feel they should buy for their children.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436489)

The American Bible Belt is hardly Sony's major focus market. The rest of the world doesn't have as much a problem with porn as the prudes in fly-over country generally seem to (or at least the loudest citizens of which want you to believe). I just don't understand people's problem with porn. It's the recorded chronicle of human sexuality, and if there's one thing the major demographic of PS3 users, ie teenage boys, love, it's porn. The GP is right. Parents, as bad as most of them are, need to take responsibility for filtering the media their children experience. I'm rarely supportive of Sony, but if this is their policy, then I commend them.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Katmando911 (1039906) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436521)

hell, don't just stop at Playstations, go ahead and keep the kids from using PCs and anything else attached to the internet. This will only retard the kids from those 'bible-belt' families and eventually lead to less job competition for the rest of us.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436783)

Well the point is that PCs have products that meet the needs of worried parents. If the PS3 doesn't, then it won't sell.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 7 years ago | (#18450165)

..then it won't sell in a small part of the world. "Net Nanny" PCs make up so very little of the internet traffic that it's not even funny.

Just because some people are louder doesn't mean more people are standing behind them.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Cadallin (863437) | about 7 years ago | (#18437313)

Hear that? Its the sound of millions of Bible Belt Denizens NOT running out and buying 1080P televisions.

Screw the Bible Belt. Pandering to that market is like asking hobos what they look for in a sports car. Who gives a rat's ass what bible thumping, trailer park dwelling inbreds want? They don't have the cash to buy a PS3 in any case.

Re:To rephrase the question: (2, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#18436673)

Gaming is an ADULT hobby.

Damn right! I _tried_ to tell them Pokémon was a satan-worship and bestiality simulator, but all I got were funny looks!

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

fhage (596871) | about 7 years ago | (#18437003)

You missed the point. I'm that responsible parent. If Sony can't provide a way for parents to lock their kids out of unacceptable content, then many people will never purchase the device. I've taught my kids self discipline and don't have to enable any parental locks. However, if my kids lose my trust, I want to have that tool available. Without such control the only solution is to disable or remove the whole device. I can see so many potential risks and so few benefits using the Sony HOME, that I probably would close off access to my teen age kids from the start. From my perspective, the Sony Home space is a good reason to avoid the PS3, and my kids viewing porn is much less of an issue than being exposed to "griefers", sexual predators, and sociopaths who believe that anyone who places themselves (or their children)in a vulnerable position is giving approval to be victimized.

I also disagree that Gaming is an Adult hobby. Children, world wide, are known for playing games, especially multi-player ones.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#18437071)

You missed the point. I'm that responsible parent. If Sony can't provide a way for parents to lock their kids out of unacceptable content, then many people will never purchase the device.


You count as a tech-saavy parent. Most parents have absolutely no frickin' clue that the current gen of gaming consoles can let little Billy get porn easier than sneaking a peak at Dad's "Hustler" collection.

You not buying a PS3 for that reason amounts to a piddling little drop in a great big bucket. Can you hear Sony crying? Neither can they, as the 947 other people for every one of you, buy it for that reason.

Porn sells, simple as that.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Col. Bloodnok (825749) | about 7 years ago | (#18437889)

However, if my kids lose my trust, I want to have that tool available. Without such control the only solution is to disable or remove the whole device

Taking childrens toys away has worked well as a tool of discipline for millenia. The practice has not suddenly become outlawed, they are your kids.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

amuro98 (461673) | about 7 years ago | (#18437285)

Gaming is hardly an "adult" hobby, despite the shift in the demographics over the past 10 years.

That said, the concern is a real one. I have a friend who has a 12 year old daughter. While she knows she's not supposed to go looking for certain types of material, every so often she'll get spam or come across something that's wildly inappropriate for her despite her following the rules.

Sony's taking a HUGE risk here by forcing "Home" down everyone's throat, unless there's a way to turn "Home" off completely. But hearing Sony's hype, they consider "Home" very much an integral part of the whole PS3 experience. And of course, what kid isn't going to be interested in online chatting with other (hopefully) kids?

You already have many people who won't play multiplayer because of immature players (who are often kids) who do nothing but yell obscenities. I really don't how Sony is going to be able to adequately moderate Home in this case. I would hope they would use a sort of global rating system, where everyone starts with a rating of "0" but if a user swears a lot, he'll get a higher rating, and others can decide to block any user with a rating higher than a certain value. (Of course, the immature 12 year olds would probably try to compete with one another to see how bad of a rating they could get...)

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Shados (741919) | about 7 years ago | (#18438329)

That always cracks me up when people point out concerns over kids having access to this kind of material, then give, as an example, a (most likely) post puberty teenager as an example.

Aside the occasional retard who goes and meet total strangers offering candies and end up getting raped in the process, whats the worse that can happen to a 12 years old having access to that kind of content, may I know? I was watching hardcore porn when I was 8, and, ironically, I am now whats most likely considered a very "straight", successful individual...

Are there really people who are severly negatively affected by this?

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

xtracto (837672) | about 7 years ago | (#18441865)

Well, for starters you are on slashdot. Which means there is a *very high* probability that you are a geek. This by itself could mean that you are not "confident" to have relationships with women. You might be afraid of them or think they are X, Y or Z. You might see woman as an object and think of them only as "bitches", etc.

The problem is not on looking nude people. The problem is *what* kind of porn would you see. I also watch porn, I have watched *almost* every kind of porn you can think of (I never could get child porn in my crazy university days... I am glad of that now :) ). I have watched softcore, hardcore, lesbian, gay, zoophilic, necrophilic, and those disgusting sheisse videos... I watched all that during some of my years during the University, Me, as you, started watching playboy magazines looking at the nice naked women. But if you are not careful you could end with a *very* bad mental health problem.

Fortunately my parents guided me quite well, I now have a girlfriend and I am very happy with her. I continue to look at porn sometime and she knows it but I never see those kind of "unnatural" pornographic things and limit to see the male/women (and lesbo =oP).

But even the "natural" man/woman can teach bad messages to your kid as lots of them focus on the domination of the female. And sex is *not* about that. At least not the reality, unless you and your loved one consent mutually to play those roles.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 7 years ago | (#18450509)

The fact that I'm on Slashdot doesn't immediately classify me as insecure about approaching a woman. When you find me a woman that isn't overweight and takes care of herself (call me an ass if you will, I don't care), doesn't believe in "God", and could cares less about Valentine's day, then I'll walk up to her and ask her if she wants to grab a bite to eat somewhere. I don't have a problem walking up to them. The problem I have is finding a person that fits in my belief structure and doesn't try to push herself off as a Queen Sheba and a necessity for all mankind. I've been asked several times why I don't have steady girlfriends and those are the reasons I give. Most people think I'm being too strict in my search.

For now, I choose single life over living a lie. Berate me and someone else for having that view if you want, but understand that we all have choices in life. If it doesn't fit in your "norm" it doesn't make it wrong. I grew up with very little access to porn, but over the past 10 years I've seen more than I can remember, or care to. Do I freak out if an advertisement shows something more than might be needed to sell a product? Not at all.

Sorry for the rant, but I believe that if you think your kids might have seen something you don't approve of, it might be time to sit them down and talk about it. I know my parents did. It was probably the most uncomfortable talk of my life, but eventually we came to an acceptance. Parents "using" toys to babysit their kids bugs the hell out of me. I don't have kids, but I guarantee that my life would change 360 degrees to raise them well. "Net-Nanny" parents aren't raising their children. They are growing them.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

Cadallin (863437) | about 7 years ago | (#18458975)

Wrong. Gaming is an adult hobby and always has been. That the advertising material is targeted at males in the 13-20 age group tells you nothing about who actually plays games, or who always has. The average gamer has always to tended to be around 28-30. Surveys pop up about once a year revealing this startling revelation. They have been since the late 80's. Everyone always acts surprised and then promptly forgets about it and assumes gamers are all 15 year old adolescents. Now as to why immature 12 year olds are so prevalent, because it only takes a tiny minority to poison a community, and the immature 12 year olds are the loudest, most obnoxious contingent.

Re:To rephrase the question: (1)

amuro98 (461673) | about 7 years ago | (#18460691)

Gaming has not always been an adult hobby. Sure, adults have always played games, but they weren't the majority of the market, not for a long time.

Gaming was for adults, eh?

So, it was *ADULTS* who were plugging quarter after quarter into machines so they could play games like Space Invaders, and then a few years later, PacMan?

And of course, this explains why the adult-oriented store, Toys R Us was the best place to buy computer and console games during the 80s.

Who can forget telling your parents to put down the NES controller and make dinner? Yeah, those were the days...

I don't know what alternate reality you came from, but unlike you, I actually grew up during the video and computer game explosion. The only reason gaming is largely populated by adults NOW is because we were all kids THEN.

Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up... (3, Interesting)

FlameboyC11 (711446) | more than 6 years ago | (#18435961)

This is actually quite interesting as Sony refused to release Porn on the betamax format, which some argue was a deciding factor on the adoption of VHS. Granted, this isn't a format war but still interesting...

Re:Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up. (1)

amuro98 (461673) | about 7 years ago | (#18437333)

I believe Sony also disallowed porno games on the PS1 (and PS2?) as well.

Even if they disallowed porno games on the PS3, Home opens up all sorts of sordid possibilities.

I predict that before Christmas, we'll start hearing about local newscasters doing "Shocking expose'" stories about how the PS3 is a portal for porn and child molesters to access your child.

Re:Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up. (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 7 years ago | (#18450107)

That's interesting. If you connect to the PSP Network, you can actually filter games based on "Adult Only" status.

Re:Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up. (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | about 7 years ago | (#18463187)

"I predict that before Christmas, we'll start hearing about local newscasters doing "Shocking expose'" stories about how the PS3 is a portal for porn and child molesters to access your child."

Depends on how much control over the media Sony has. AFAIK Nintendo has no media ownership, Microsoft has a lot, and Sony...well, Sony is everywhere.

Re:Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up. (1)

powerspike (729889) | about 7 years ago | (#18437605)

They are talking about the online home, not the blueray disks, so that's a different matter entirely. If you do a search for "+porn +sony +blueray" in google you'll see that sony have done the same thing for blueray as they did betamax....

Re:Betamax never had porn, look where it ended up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18441741)

Please, explain how Vivid Video is releasing on Blu-Ray, if Sony has apparently outlawed all porn.

Brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18437345)

"after reminding us that avatars won't be able to interact"

A social service where you can't interact with other people. Brilliant!

New meme on the horizon (1)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | about 7 years ago | (#18438331)

Calling it either the Pronstation3 or the Play*coff*with yourself/other*coff*station.

Of course when it won't read the disks anymore...blue-ray/balls will work its way into the joke,
or the Office Space "Two chicks/controllers *at the same time*".


You don't see what you see! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18441761)

This comment is porn and you can avoid it by not reading it again. I hope you appreciate our beautiful moderation system.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account