Grandma ([info]krysalist) wrote,

ESRB Changes GTA: San Andreas Rating To Adults Only!

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO - News) announced today that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has changed the rating of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on all platforms from "Mature 17+" (M) to "Adults Only 18+" (AO) because of the so-called "hot coffee mod," an unauthorized third party modification that alters the retail version of the game. Take-Two cooperated fully with the ESRB's investigation.


Source.


This is bad. Let me tell you why I think so:

1) The Hot-Coffee MOD may have been part of the San Andreas build engine, but it was not available until it was hacked by a third-party. I've heard rumors that Take Two and Rockstar may have leaked the existence of the Hot Coffee system to said modder, but that's completely unsubstantiated, and I'm sure the last thing the companies wanted was to earn a AO rating (synonymous to the MPAA's NC-17 rating). Such a rating translates to one thing: reduced sales and availability, which is the problem in the first place with rating systems that attempt to do moral work on behalf of the consumer, but only result in legislating sales and demographic.

2) The Hot-Coffee Mod is ONLY ACCESSIBLE when you patch the source code on the PC version. You need a separate 40 dollar modding system to access the mod on the console versions. Therefore to issue this revocation for all versions of the game is an extremely unfair way of dealing with problem, not to mention that in order to view said content, you must exert both effort and money beyond what Rockstar has asked of its gamers.

3) Long-time gamers know that Hot Coffee is not the first pornographic mod to be found in a video game. This could set an unfortunate precedent for Modders in general, even ones that add their own content to games. If the ESRB had been around when people were using id Software's level builder and texture editor to change the Doom walls into images of Chasey Lain taking it up the ass, would they have taken the same action?

4) Immediately following this investigation, the ESRB has changed it's rating standards for game manufacturers so that when a game is reviewed, ALL content on the disc, even content that isn't "playable", must be submitted to the Board for review. I have a feeling this will make the review process that much more convoluted, and perhaps inadvertently affect decisions about game ratings, due to whatever inaccessible content is found.

These new restrictions and controversy might generate some positive publicity for Rockstar and San Andreas, but it will also give fuel to "morally-superior" politicians" and other legislators with a demographic to please.

I think the ESRB should be disbanded, along with the MPAA. If your kids are going to play video games or see movies, and you're going to let them, do your research. If you don't have time to do it, and you worry about what kind of content your kids are accessing, you shouldn't let them play games or see movies. I feel the same way about movies.

People should take an active interest in their entertainment, for their kids, for themselves, whatever.

Out.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 23 comments

[info]yermo

July 21 2005, 17:53:15 UTC 6 years ago

They're going to remove the content, and it will immediately be re-classified as M. It'll be back on the shelves within weeks. They don't even need to change the packaging, just press new discs.

Meanwhile, stores like EB most likely already had it behind the counter rather than on the shelves anyway, and people will still ask for it.

[info]x9

July 21 2005, 17:58:31 UTC 6 years ago

I would counter that by saying that it is good.

It's good because it more or less settles the issue without any actual laws being made, and hopefully by doing so voluntarily, Rockstar has avoided a much more colossal shitstorm. The ESRB isn't a government body. Rockstar also, as Steve noted, is removing the content and such. With luck, this will leave Hillary without much in the way of anything to attack and the whole thing will kind of quiet down. With luck.

[info]krysalist

July 21 2005, 18:43:55 UTC 6 years ago

ESRB policy was altered significantly so that the game companies could be held responsible for the actions of modders if they manage to exploit some portion of the game's source code in a controversial manner. It also confirms the power of the ESRB with regards to game sales and availability, and could also cause game companies further anxiety with regards to content.

Also, this is now major news. I doubt very much politicans like Clinton will leave it alone, after all, why stop with just one game? They could attack God of War next, which has at its disposal a cornucopia of blood and titty. They're going to be like sharks in the water and controversial video games are the blood.

[info]x9

July 21 2005, 18:55:44 UTC 6 years ago

Okay, I probably should have modified that; the best-case scenario of this is that it is good. But we're probably not going to experience the best-case scenario.

I'm hoping they don't go after modders, and I suspect they won't; it's not like Hot Coffee was dumped into the game wholesale. What I'm hoping for is that the biggest repercussion will be that coders will be a little more careful about what they remove and what they just comment/dummy out.

I'm mostly kind of depressed that this even happened - that somehow it was okay that this game had (in addition to everything else it had, which is a lot) vividly implied sex which you could clearly hear, but not see; but then thanks to a mod you could also see it, and that was awful enough to warrant such a shitstorm.

I mean, what are they trying to do here? The game was already pretty clear about definitely not being for children at all ever under any circumstances of any description. What will it be now? Can a thing somehow be more not for children at all ever under any circumstances of any description?

I'm anticipating a new ESRB rating on top of AO - perhaps "AO, but we really mean it."

[info]krysalist

July 21 2005, 19:26:01 UTC 6 years ago

i sound like a shill for rockstar here but i don't care...

I think San Andreas and the Hot Coffee mod have become a scapegoat for legislators and advisory boards like the ESRB who feel they are losing moral control over these innovative game companies that are less concerned with making content that is universally acceptable than it is new and exciting.

Rockstar doesn't make GTA to train kids how to kill prostitutes, have sex with their girlfriends, drown people in cement, etc. Rockstar makes games that they feel are entertaining to the gaming public.




[info]_jejune

July 21 2005, 18:08:02 UTC 6 years ago

Except more people own the PS2 version rather than the PC version, and last I checked, the hot coffee mod only worked for PC anyway because that's how patches work.

I could be wrong though.

Anyway, it's ridiculous, and I just need to buy the game for Grumpy already (Grumpy being my Xbox).

[info]x9

July 21 2005, 18:12:27 UTC 6 years ago

You can access it on the ps2 with a Pro Action Replay. Possibly on the Xbox version too. The jury's still out on whether or not they'll be naked without the mod, but other than that, there it is.

[info]emmaone

July 21 2005, 20:36:46 UTC 6 years ago

I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

what the fuck is the difference between rating something 17+ and something 18+? how is it that in this one year one magically becomes worldly and nonplussed by things such as pixellated sex that you have to go through trouble to find

I just don't get it at all

I don't even play videogames particularly and this pisses me off

[info]emmaone

July 21 2005, 20:40:22 UTC 6 years ago

I think I am making some progress here

it is two things combined that piss me off

1) ageism
2) vilification of sex

and these aren't just american things, because games like GTA:SA have caused shit all around the globe! this is one of those things where industry regulation is BALLS

ALSO

IF the game is already mature
what difference does it make to up the rating? in theory you are selling to a mature audience, fuckwits

the AO rating exists solely to make a game unsellable, because ain't no retailer gonna touch that shit. fuck that.

[info]armadill0

July 21 2005, 22:03:56 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I think I am making some progress here

Fits in nicely in a bassackwards country where the "moral majority" dictates that 18 is old enough to wield M4A1's and shoot people, but not old enough to drink a fuckin beer.
As for sex, it's a sin out of wedlock; I don't know where in the bible it said that, but that's what my preacher said, so it's true. Also, liberals are bad. Support our troops.

[info]krysalist

July 22 2005, 05:21:30 UTC 6 years ago

Goddamn, I miss you.

"Back during the Gulf War, I was caught in a political quagmire, in that I was the only person in the US who didn't support the troops."

-Bill Hicks, paraphrased.

[info]yermo

July 21 2005, 22:02:23 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

Well, the ESRB ratings are supposed to be pretty analogous to MPAA ratings. R/M means "no kids under 17 without parental permission" and also, "think carefully before you let your kids see this". NC-17/AO means "no kids under 18, no matter what."

It's the difference between, "this might be inappropriate, parents take note" and "this is inappropriate, parents you don't get a choice"

[info]emmaone

July 22 2005, 01:43:13 UTC 6 years ago

except there is this tiny discrepancy

from the esrb website:

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.


there is NOTHING in there that says it would be suitable for those under 17, even with parental permission. they aren't entirely analogous.

let's look at the definition for Adults Only

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 the difference we have is "may be suited for persons 17 and older" -- the may is intentionally ambiguous, however its usage implies that it would only be suitable for persons 17 and over, and perhaps even that is a stretch. maybe it's just poorly written. fuck that, it's definitely poorly written. but nowhere in there does it say "this may be appropriate for those under seventeen."

yet more proof that the AO rating is bullshit.

[info]yermo

July 22 2005, 04:08:30 UTC 6 years ago

Re: except there is this tiny discrepancy

Really, the AO rating is only for Italian Guidos:

"Eh oh, Tony! Getta load of dis here San Andreas game!"

[info]krysalist

July 22 2005, 05:24:47 UTC 6 years ago

Cha Cha Cha!

Diarrhea!

[info]krysalist

July 22 2005, 05:19:09 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

Another thought, sort of distinct, but your explanation made me think of it...

The MPAA rating system is VOLUNTARY, but it has become an issue not of the movie's content or artistic vision of the director, but an issue for studios who want their films to make money.

Also, and I'm pretty sure you're in agreement with me on this, NO ONE SHOULD TELL PARENTS WHAT THEIR KIDS CAN OR CANNOT SEE/PLAY!!! If the parents make a bad decision, the fault should be on them, and not on society for failing to prevent their children from seeing or playing what is, in the parent's mind, inappropriate for them to experience!

I may not be a financial libertarian, but in this arena I am absolute.

[info]yermo

July 22 2005, 11:36:24 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

Basically, yes, I totally agree that it should be voluntary, but it's asking a bit much to have a parent see the movie before taking their kid. So, they get a guideline of sorts, and with an "R" movie, the theatres expect an adult to accompany their kids.

I'm kind of appalled at American parenting as a whole, because this game isn't called "Mario Sunshine" or "Kirby Dreamworld." It is "Grand Theft Auto", a felony. Why are kids playing a game that's named after a felony crime without supervision?

[info]spacebanditandy

July 22 2005, 17:39:49 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

Just so you guys know, AO does more than stamp 18+ on a box. It also makes stores take the game off their shelves.

Yesterday, I got a system email from Circuit City (where I work) that they will take of GTA:SA off it's shelves and not sell it since it's an AO game, and the store is 'family oriented'.

I'm sure it still will be at your local EBX or Gamestop, but I think that an AO rating will help not selling the game to minors.

The thing is, why did rockstar leave these hot coffee scenes in their game, waiting to be unopened? That's just asking for shit right there.

I promote good games, and creativity in games, but young children don't know right and wrong, and what consequences are. Parents or adults need to tell them that games are games, they represent a reality that cannot be done in real life. I don't beleive games influence kids to go over the edge and shoot people in real life, but what it does is add unappropriate circumstances in their environment... say a kid in his 3rd grade classroom starts swearing and discussing how fun it is to jack cars and bang hoes in a game.

There's a ton of games on the horizion like GTA coming this way, some even more vivid, vulgar and visual.

[info]yermo

July 22 2005, 18:37:04 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

The reason why they left it in was most likely not to be "sneaky". If you're making a huge painting on commission, and your client tells you to put clothes on that naked woman, you're not going to make a whole new painting, you're going to repaint only that woman.

Similarly, they didn't want to completely rebuild the code and rewrite many things, they just patched over it and made it inaccessible. They were probably getting close to the deadline, and a manager made the decision to do the cheaper, quicker solution.

[info]krysalist

July 22 2005, 21:02:12 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

I think this is probably quite accurate. Who knows how much extra time it would've taken to actually remove the code from the game. And game deadlines can be as severe as film deadlines.

[info]emmaone

July 23 2005, 04:30:01 UTC 6 years ago

belated but still here

I discussed this with my mom, who works in IT, and she said it was probably just cutting costs. Shit like this (though usually not with the same type of material) happens all the time. Steve is right on with his explanation.

[info]spacebanditandy

July 23 2005, 13:34:05 UTC 6 years ago

Re: I tried to write this down earlier, but to little avail

Maybe not sneaky, but if this was intended to sell as an M game, what made them think these scenes should be put in the first place?! Plus, what producer sent the ok for it? Since people check the code, there must have been alot of programmers that knew about it. It was ready to be found out.

They obviously spent the time and effort making it. They could have spent that time on something else.

[info]emmaone

July 23 2005, 04:33:26 UTC 6 years ago

while my views of civil liberties sometimes veer towards libertarian

i find the word to best describe me is libertine :x
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…