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."
Wow, $11,000 (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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?
$11 K ? (Score:2, Insightful)
this is absurd
I'm still confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm still confused (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
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
pfft (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Performing a major CYA perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.
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 game A ships with naughty-bits!". It doesn't matter - to the end user running show_naughty_bits.exe, it's the exact same experience. Out here in the real world, there's no difference. Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?
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: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 willfully deceived), but we threw out the idea of unlimited buyer bewareing a long time ago.
It goes like this: Many people in the country feel that exposure to sex harms their children. (I know, I know, but it's their belief and I don't tell people what to believe.) Thus, Rockstar did the equivalent of putting "peanut free" on a jar of peanuts and feeding it to someone who is allergic.
I don't agree, but I do understand.
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?
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: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: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.
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 aren't going to have easily exposed wiring that will electrocute you.
Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).
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 it from the parents. And where, might I ask were the parents? (old topic: NOT REAL PARENTS. Just reproductive units)
2: As many have already pointed out. No one seems to be complaining about the fundamental content (i.e.: profanity, killing, assault, theft, etc...) in the game, but good lord, pixelated simulacrum of sex gets these nuts bent out of shape? (no jokes about the possible pun there) Give me a break, sex is something most everyone does and quite a few enjoy (hell, if that was not true, little Johnny and/or Jane would not be an issue). But I believe there are a LOT of laws (societal as well as moral) that prohibit murder, theft, etc...
so nutty!
I am just going to crawl back into my hole. The world has just gotten more scary and I don't want to come out anymore.
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: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 get.
The main point of this whole episode isn't that one company did something bad. It is that one company did something that compromises the whole rating system.
I'm a parent of a 1- and 3-year old with another on the way around Christmas. I haven't had to deal with this type of issue yet, although I'm sure it will come.
As a parent, I'm very busy. I try to do the best I can for my child. But I certainly don't have time to fully play every game my kids will want to play and to find every easter egg to make sure its appropriate. I'm actually not too concerned with just straight nudity--that's a normal occurance in life. But viewing hardcore porn or violence messes with brain chemistry. And with kids' brains developping so much every day it does wreak havoc on their little minds.
But I digress. I'm busy. I can't play every game. So here are my options:
1) Tell my kid he can only play games I approve. It might take me two months to have time to fully preview that new game. Do you think he'll want to wait? Do you think I want to live with the kid while he bugs me every 5 minutes to see if I've had time to review it. I know I wouldn't want to be in that position as a kid.
or
2) Use an external resource to help me with the review. They can review it once and then give me an executive summary. I will certainly come to some conclusions about how this resource aligns with my own thoughts and views. But they will provide some valuable information. The review can be done much quicker and everyone is happy.
Kids (at least my kids, right now) can handle a positive or negative answer. What drives them crazy is having the outcome undecided.
So undermining the rating system is a BIG DEAL. And it should be a big deal to all game manufacturers. Why? Because either parents get help rating the games or sales slow down. Sure there are some parents who don't care and will allow the kids to make these decisions. But the majority are well intentioned. Without the help of an external review board sales will slow down as _every customer_ must now do their own review. With a review board the review can be done once (and more thoroughly) and that is pre-release. So once it is released sales can increase right away.
James.
Re:$11,000 per item??? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 a Libertarian theory confabulation about the FTC, I'll say that Hot Coffee was not included in the game. Period. On the disc is a different matter, but the ESRB is concerned with the game itself, not the physical medium. The product was not used in a manner consistent with its labeling, there should be a very limited avenue of redress.
Not only do they advertise fair and balanced, but regular show hosts have admitted that they are not -- though I'm sure the management would have a different song to sing.
In addition to the fact that the current administration would let the FTC touch them with a ten-foot pole, we all know that the 'censorship' hue and cry would destroy any chances of a successful false advertising judgment, or of a tort suit (which would need to prove harm, anyway).
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 allocation rather than blatant censorship; the FTC back to protecting consumers from exploding cellphones rather than blatant censorship; And to burn the PTC and Jackoff Thompson at the motherfucking stake!
And yes, I used some four-letter words above - The fact that we consider censorship even remotely acceptible, even if only with a token punishment, seriously pushes a few of my buttons. We don't need to debate the content, or the ease of accessing it, or the fines, or the technical authority to impose such fines. We need to get each and every last one of these worthless trips who would tell us what we can and can't see/say/read/write/hear/think/feel up against the wall - while we need to do it while we still have the capacity to have such thoughts!
Where's the argument? (Score:3, Insightful)