Support NeoGAF

[Amused_To_Death]

What the fuck is wrong with some of you? We, as gamers, should be encouraging developers to push the envelope of gaming as far as they want to, why should we get dumbed-down versions of any form of entertainment because some politician or some activist decided, probably arbitrarly, that we should be allowed to view certain things, or play up to a certain level? Would you want to only read books that conform to certain standards because the authors are not allowed to write about sex, violence, or whatever? How about art, shouldn't we protect the children? You know they might be able to view harmful forms of art on the internet! If GAF is acting like this is such a big deal, imgaine what Joe Middle America thinks when he sees this on ABC or in USA Today. "Oh the horror, what have we come down to, sex in games? Only children play videogames, we must protect them from it. They might grow up to like sex, god forbid, we must end it now..."

I wish Rockstar has the balls to stand up and say, yeah, we put it in there and if some don't like it, we encourage you not to buy our products. Of course, the sissy corporate lawyers won't allow it...

Thank you Rockstar, I wish all developers take notice and give us the best creative content they can imagine, edgy or not, and let us decide whether to buy it or not. I don't want Jerry Fallwell deciding what Rockstar should be allowed to produce and what I'm allowed to play or view. Last time I checked, this was still fucking America.

 

[bitwise]

lol @ "nails in coffin" comment.

more like, "lying all the way to the bank".

 

[DarienA]

Fuck off, assholes. I own all three PS2 GTA games.

You said they were investigated for questionable accounting. That's exactly what I fucking said. Christ.

Actually you said they had a questionable business model.

What is this questionable business model you speak of?

 

[DDayton]

What the f--- is wrong with some of you? We, as gamers, should be encouraging developers to push the envelope of gaming as far as they want to, why should we get dumbed-down versions of any form of entertainment because some politician or some activist decided, probably arbitrarly, that we should be allowed to view certain things, or play up to a certain level? . . . Thank you Rockstar, I wish all developers take notice and give us the best creative content they can imagine, edgy or not, and let us decide whether to buy it or not. I don't want Jerry Fallwell deciding what Rockstar should be allowed to produce and what I'm allowed to play or view. Last time I checked, this was still f---ing America.

...

Are you denser than the lead paint in your nursery? Rockstar has never been limited in what they can produce -- they can put anything in their game that they want to. There is a ratings board, set up BY THE GAME INDUSTRY, to disclose what is in the game. This is done so that individuals can choose whether or not to purchase something, and to keep developers free from regulation over the content they place in their game. The issue is that Rockstar seemingly left code in the game and failed to disclose it to the ESRB, then lied about it afterwards. Rockstar is making themselves look untrustworthy and unreliable, and making the ESRB look useless -- thus risking government censorship and the end of the freedom the ESRB essentially provides.

The ESRB is a "gentlemen's agreement" by the gaming companies to clearly label their titles as to the content within, thus keeping the government from creating some overly intrusive entity into the equation. The ESRB and the full disclosure of game content by developers is the very thing keeping the government out of the picture AND allowing Rockstar, and the others, to produce the kind of game YOU want.

The Rockstar exec/producers/programmers/etc. who were foolish enough to leave enough of the code and assets intact are the ones who left the company open to problems... especially if it's true that an Action Replay memory hack enables the entire mode.

 

[Link]

Actually you said they had a questionable business model.

What is this questionable business model you speak of?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=business model

a design of the operations of a business which focuses on how revenue will be generated

Seems pretty much the same thing to me.

 

[DarienA]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=business model

Seems pretty much the same thing to me.

Oh shit I thought you were talking about something specific that we didn't already know about... that shit is commonplace across various industries. This (selling stuff to themselves to show additional revenue) was just a small piece of their business model.

 

[border]

Business model generates revenue. Accounting tracks revenue.

 

[Link]

Well, then I appologize for the confusion. I should have said accounting.

 

[kaching]

The ESRB is a "gentlemen's agreement" by the gaming companies to clearly label their titles as to the content within, thus keeping the government from creating some overly intrusive entity into the equation. The ESRB and the full disclosure of game content by developers is the very thing keeping the government out of the picture AND allowing Rockstar, and the others, to produce the kind of game YOU want.

A "gentleman's agreement", eh? What happened to characterizing the ESRB as a puppet organization like you did in the last thread? Or the insinuations you made that they should have power over game companies? I never knew the ESRB was such a multi-faceted organization

 

[DDayton]

A "gentleman's agreement", eh? What happened to characterizing the ESRB as a puppet organization like you did in the last thread? Or the insinuations you made that they should have power over game companies? I never knew the ESRB was such a multi-faceted organization

...

It's the same basic thing.

The ESRB exists to keep the game companies from being censored by the government. It's the puppet of the game industry in that its purpose is to shield the industry from governmental control; it's a "gentleman's agreement" in that it only has power if all the companies agree to have their games rated; it has power in as much as the companies agree to give it power -- such as when they submit a title for a rating and make a good faith effort to show all the game content. I'm not really sure what your point is here. If you'd like, I could use fewer and simpler words in the future.

 

[Tellaerin]

Well. Now this is an interesting development. And here I'd actually come to believe that the modder might have coded up the minigame himself out of unused art and audio assets, too. I don't know how they're going to tapdance their way out of this, and considering the possible consequences if they don't, it's a little depressing.

I don't know what's going to come of this, but I'm starting to become really concerned, both about potential censorship and restrictions (legal or technical) that might be imposed on game mods in the future.

 

[Tellaerin]

...

It's the same basic thing.

The ESRB exists to keep the game companies from being censored by the government. It's the puppet of the game industry in that its purpose is to shield the industry from governmental control; it's a "gentleman's agreement" in that it only has power if all the companies agree to have their games rated; it has power in as much as the companies agree to give it power -- such as when they submit a title for a rating and make a good faith effort to show all the game content. I'm not really sure what your point is here. If you'd like, I could use fewer and simpler words in the future.

'Puppet' is a loaded word. It implies that the ESRB has no autonomy, that it poses as an independent agency while actually dancing on the strings of the game industry, which secretly controls it. If that's not what you're implying, then I suggest rather than using fewer or simpler words, you just use ones that are better-chosen.

 

[DDayton]

Well. Now this is an interesting development. And here I'd actually come to believe that the modder might have coded up the minigame himself out of unused art and audio assets, too. I don't know how they're going to tapdance their way out of this, and considering the possible consequences if they don't, it's a little depressing.

I don't know what's going to come of this, but I'm starting to become really concerned, both about potential censorship and restrictions (legal or technical) that might be imposed on game mods in the future.

I'm assuming the first consequence will be a purging of Rockstar employees.

'Puppet' is a loaded word. It implies that the ESRB has no autonomy, that it poses as an independent agency while actually dancing on the strings of the game industry, which secretly controls it. If that's not what you're implying, then I suggest rather than using fewer or simpler words, you just use ones that are better-chosen.

I suppose it could be a bit more loaded than was intended. However, the ESRB was set up by the game industry, and it exists to serve it. The "puppet" part is meant to imply that it's more a part of the industry than a fully "independent organization" -- the ratings serve the needs of the industry.

 

[Wafflecopter]

I'm assuming the first consequence will be a purging of Rockstar employees.

Only a few would be fired. The company itself will pay a fine.

 

[kaching]

It's the same basic thing.

The hell it is. You're attempting to characterize the ESRB as a chimeric entity comprised of diametrically opposed purposes. It can't be a puppet of the game industry if everyone is submitting their games in good faith to be rated in good faith. There's no power brokered there - that's just a SERVICE RENDERED. Calling the ESRB a puppet of the game industry implies manipulation by the game industry, and suggesting the ESRB should have power over the game industry implies manipulation the other way. So you've basically tried to claim that the the game industry manipulates the ESRB which in turn manipulates the game industry and its all based on a gentlemen's agreement which gets the games rated in good faith. Riiight.

 

[DDayton]

The hell it is. You're attempting to characterize the ESRB as a chimeric entity comprised of diametrically opposed purposes. It can't be a puppet of the game industry if everyone is submitting their games in good faith to be rated in good faith. There's no power brokered there - that's just a SERVICE RENDERED. Calling the ESRB a puppet of the game industry implies manipulation by the game industry, and suggesting the ESRB should have power over the game industry implies manipulation the other way. So you've basically tried to claim that the the game industry manipulates the ESRB which in turn manipulates the game industry and its all based on a gentlemen's agreement which gets the games rated in good faith. Riiight.

The ESRB = entity set up by the game industry.

The ESRB's power only exists when companies submit games to them. It has no power outside of that which the game companies give to it. It exists because it's beneficial to the game industry and keeps the government off the backs of the companies. The ESRB is, esentially, the game industry regulating itself via a group they've established.

No, the game companies don't secretly vote to have the ESRB take actions. However, the ESRB's power only exists because the game companies WANT it to have power. The ESRB has power over individual companies submitting games in so much as those companies have AGREED to the ESRB terms. Its power is entirely contingent on game companies agreeing to recognize the ESRB as being the "ratings board" for video games, and holding that as something important.

I'll drop the word "puppet." I really didn't think it would lead to the verbal debate that I've seem to have brought about. What would you prefer the ESRB to be called? It's not a truly independent agency; it was established (and it is supported) by the very folks it regulates. It has no true power of its own, but it does have power to those who agree to abide by it. It's not a "puppet" in that the game companies aren't directly pulling strings, but it certainly isn't a free agent with any real power.

 

[kaching]

I'll drop the word "puppet." I really didn't think it would lead to the verbal debate that I've seem to have brought about.

Calling the ESRB a puppet organization by itself is not the problem here - if you truly believe that it is a puppet org. then make your case. The problem stems from the fact that you call the ESRB a puppet org. AND and an org. based on good faith interaction with the game industry. You can't have both - the concepts are mutually exclusive. Being puppet org. compromises any chance of true good faith interaction and true good-faith interaction doesn't allow for any kind of manipulation of the system.

What would you prefer the ESRB to be called? It's not a truly independent agency; it was established (and it is supported) by the very folks it regulates. It has no true power of its own, but it does have power to those who agree to abide by it. It's not a "puppet" in that the game companies aren't directly pulling strings, but it certainly isn't a free agent with any real power.

It doesn't matter if the the ESRB was not spawned independently - that doesn't mean they can't fulfill their mandate without inappropriate influence. And being a free agent would not have necessarily brought with it any "real power" because the game industry would still have to agree to the terms of regulation a free agent might suggest. Nor would a free agent be beyond manipulation as a puppet themselves. Not even government regulation is beyond manipulation, of course. The ESRB is a self-regulatory body, plain and simple. That designation does not automatically imply manipulation, that's a separate force that can be applied whether an organization is independent or not.

 

[The Faceless Master]

GAMESPOT CONFIRMS CODES WORK!!! :lol :lol :lol

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html

not that there was ever any doubt...

The next screen proved that the PlayStation 2 edition of the game does indeed include a sexually graphic minigame, which plays almost exactly the same as the Hot Coffee mod. It begins inside a bedroom with Denise, wearing only a pink thong and a cutoff T-shirt bearing the Rockstar logo, performing simulated fellatio on CJ, who is fully clothed in jeans and a "wife beater"-style tank top.

After a few seconds, the minigame proceeds to semi-explicit simulated copulation. Although players can change the camera angle with the circle button, as well as cycle though three sexual positions with the square button, no genitalia are ever seen. To win, players must maintain a steady rhythm with the left analog stick to build up an "excitement meter" in the right-hand screen. Fill the meter and Denise becomes very excited, telling CJ he is "the man" before the game congratulates you with the words "Nice guys finish last!" Let the meter drop to empty and the game admonishes you with "Failure to satisfy a woman is a CRIME!"

 

[Azih]

You know I heard that if you do really well in the sex scenes CJ screams "KILL ALL HAITIANS" on orgasm.

 

[koam]

^^ obviously did not read the first post

heh i read everything from the quote and under, didn't even see that first line

 

[Wario64]

lol, they just reported the coffee mod on the local news and they showed someone pushing buttons on a dreamcast controller

 

[johns all like]

and somewhere scott bayo is plowing a woman he doesn't love.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Calling the ESRB a puppet organization by itself is not the problem here - if you truly believe that it is a puppet org. then make your case. The problem stems from the fact that you call the ESRB a puppet org. AND and an org. based on good faith interaction with the game industry. You can't have both - the concepts are mutually exclusive. Being puppet org. compromises any chance of true good faith interaction and true good-faith interaction doesn't allow for any kind of manipulation of the system.

It doesn't matter if the the ESRB was not spawned independently - that doesn't mean they can't fulfill their mandate without inappropriate influence. And being a free agent would not have necessarily brought with it any "real power" because the game industry would still have to agree to the terms of regulation a free agent might suggest. Nor would a free agent be beyond manipulation as a puppet themselves. Not even government regulation is beyond manipulation, of course. The ESRB is a self-regulatory body, plain and simple. That designation does not automatically imply manipulation, that's a separate force that can be applied whether an organization is independent or not.

But all the ESRB does is rate without really any power. A game developer submits their game, under no obligation, to the ESRB with a video tape that supposedly discloses everything that would push the rating of the game. The ESRB then decides based on a voluntarily submission based on good faith that the company has indeed disclosed all the content. The whole problem with the ESRB is that it's not really independent, it doesn't have much power, and it's all based on good faith. So it is true that the organization is sort of a puppet organization because the game companies can manipulate the ESRB to whatever it wants it to do. The simple fact tha they choose what content to show to the ESRB means they can shape the rating in any way they want. If a company violates this good faith, mind you they are again under no obligation to use the ESRB, what power does the ESRB have to punish a company? What power does it have to make sure that game companies are held accountable and are telling the truth? None.

The ESRB was created by game companies to keep the government off their back and while they can pretend it has all this power and is independent, it really is pulling of strings that fortunately game companies have acted in good faith so far.

 

[flarkminator]

and somewhere scott bayo is plowing a woman he doesn't love.

hahahahahahaaha

 

[Tellaerin]

If a company violates this good faith, mind you they are again under no obligation to use the ESRB, what power does the ESRB have to punish a company? What power does it have to make sure that game companies are held accountable and are telling the truth? None.

They have the power to refuse to classify future games from that publisher. In this day and age, an unrated game would meet an even worse fate at retail than one that's received the dreaded AO. Do you think stores like Walmart or Target are going to take a chance on stocking an unrated game, especially one from a company with a reputation like Rockstar's? So the ESRB does have power of a sort, should they decide to exercise it.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The thing I'm worried about is power-drunk game haters like Jack Thompson riding this story into setting up some system where games have to "pass" some strict, puritanical rules or get slapped with something like an AO rating.

Wario, that's funny as hell, but you know they'll roll out footage like that mixed in with shots of kids clamoring for games, Doom, Twisted Metal 2, etc. while they accuse the (practically unknown before this) easter egg above of destroying Western Civilization as we know it.

Still, for R*, this is at the moment Sales+1000000...