Another blow for game devs in general
by Matt Benfall · in General Discussion · 07/21/2005 (5:14 am) · 168 replies
"Going forward, the ESRB will now require all game publishers to submit any pertinent content shipped in final product even if is not intended to ever be accessed during game play, or remove it from the final disc."
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/20/news_6129500.html
Bottom of the article.
My thoughts:
First of all, this whole GTA-thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Not to sound like an anti-Americanite, but down here (in Aus) they showed a clip from the mod on the 6pm news. To limit that to 18+ instead of 17+ and effectively killing the sales for Rockstar causes three issues to come to my mind:
1) Holding the original developers responsible for content created by third parties.
This is pretty self-explanetory. While Hot Coffee may point pretty much straight to the devs, how long before someone sues someone over a nude skin that Little Johnny downloaded?
2) Games being unfairly restricted in terms of sales by differences in censorship between mediums.
Movies, TV, and books all have far, far more explicit violence and sex than in any game I've seen, but in this case specifically, nothing in GTA would have caused it to be rated higher than M15+ if it were a TV show with the same effect. Sure, limbs fly off, but the graphic violence is so abstract it has no impact. Soldier of Fortune, on the other hand, towers above nearly all other games in the graphic violence field, but where's the hoo-hah over that? Is it because he's a soldier not a criminal?
3) ESRB's statement about all content must be made available to them upon review.
Added headache and delays to games, while the devs comb over everything to make sure stray code and assets aren't hanging around. Now, something coded for kicks & giggles overnight might end up hurting a game's rating, even if players can never access it, ever.
Thoughts?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/20/news_6129500.html
Bottom of the article.
My thoughts:
First of all, this whole GTA-thing is blown entirely out of proportion. Not to sound like an anti-Americanite, but down here (in Aus) they showed a clip from the mod on the 6pm news. To limit that to 18+ instead of 17+ and effectively killing the sales for Rockstar causes three issues to come to my mind:
1) Holding the original developers responsible for content created by third parties.
This is pretty self-explanetory. While Hot Coffee may point pretty much straight to the devs, how long before someone sues someone over a nude skin that Little Johnny downloaded?
2) Games being unfairly restricted in terms of sales by differences in censorship between mediums.
Movies, TV, and books all have far, far more explicit violence and sex than in any game I've seen, but in this case specifically, nothing in GTA would have caused it to be rated higher than M15+ if it were a TV show with the same effect. Sure, limbs fly off, but the graphic violence is so abstract it has no impact. Soldier of Fortune, on the other hand, towers above nearly all other games in the graphic violence field, but where's the hoo-hah over that? Is it because he's a soldier not a criminal?
3) ESRB's statement about all content must be made available to them upon review.
Added headache and delays to games, while the devs comb over everything to make sure stray code and assets aren't hanging around. Now, something coded for kicks & giggles overnight might end up hurting a game's rating, even if players can never access it, ever.
Thoughts?
About the author
#82
07/26/2005 (6:15 am)
Okay, my last words on the subject: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4717139.stm....now, does anyone think this was ever 'cute' 'clever' 'smart'.......no matter who intended what. Fools and their money soon go seperate ways....after the lawyers clean up.
#83
That's my biggest problem with all this... Companies are removing this game from their shelves but they aren't removing movies from their shelves that depict the same (or worse) content. I can go out and buy 100+ movies from Best Buy or Walmart that show simulated sex acts. They have people grinding their naked bodies against eachother with the creative use of shadows to hide otherwise offensive penetration. Same thing with San Andreas, there are no genetalia so there's no penetration. That is what characterizes a movie as X or even NC17 - the display of penetration.
Team America, the uncut edition, is now on shelves at Best Buy.. In that movie, there is a 5 minute sex scene between puppets who have no genetalia. This is the version that would have gotten them an NC17 rating at the theaters. How come it's on shelves at Best Buy?? And since it's "not rated", kids can buy it because there's no way to know the content is offensive.
It's a double standard. If they are going to place these restrictions of the gaming industry, then they better damn well put them on the movie industry. We'll see how long before the MPAA is lobbying in congress to change that law.
Preferrably, however, I want these people/groups to just get out of my damn life and stop trying to make the decision of what is or isn't good for me.
07/26/2005 (7:27 am)
So why in the world aren't Best Buy and Walmart and Meijer's, et al. ripping movies rated "R" off the shelves?That's my biggest problem with all this... Companies are removing this game from their shelves but they aren't removing movies from their shelves that depict the same (or worse) content. I can go out and buy 100+ movies from Best Buy or Walmart that show simulated sex acts. They have people grinding their naked bodies against eachother with the creative use of shadows to hide otherwise offensive penetration. Same thing with San Andreas, there are no genetalia so there's no penetration. That is what characterizes a movie as X or even NC17 - the display of penetration.
Team America, the uncut edition, is now on shelves at Best Buy.. In that movie, there is a 5 minute sex scene between puppets who have no genetalia. This is the version that would have gotten them an NC17 rating at the theaters. How come it's on shelves at Best Buy?? And since it's "not rated", kids can buy it because there's no way to know the content is offensive.
It's a double standard. If they are going to place these restrictions of the gaming industry, then they better damn well put them on the movie industry. We'll see how long before the MPAA is lobbying in congress to change that law.
Preferrably, however, I want these people/groups to just get out of my damn life and stop trying to make the decision of what is or isn't good for me.
#84
Yeah, Rockstar got slapped for leaving the content on the disc.
They also got slapped because a mod unlocked it. The ESRB clearly does not distinct one from the other:
In other words, without the mod ... they probably wouldn't have acted. And they even mention as such in their recommendations to the industry:
Nowhere does the ESRB clarify that a modification can only unlock pornographic content on a disc to be considered pertinent. And if they meant that, I think they would have bothered to have clarified it.
And more to the point ... should they? The ESRB is not in the business to watchdog version control or monitor the build process of a developer. They are in the business of warning parents about the content of video games. Now they are in the business of warning parents about the contents of modifiable video games.
To the parent, if their kid can go and download a mod off the internet and turn the previously T or M rated game into pornography, why should the ESRB be making the distinction about the nature of the mod? The parent isn't going to understand this distinction and to the the end result is precisely the same. And that's how the ESRB sees it:
Sure, developers understand the thorny nature of user mods ... but parents don't. And developers aren't the ESRB's audience. This is why I wish they hadn't ruled as they did. They've set a horrible precedent here, and one the anti-gaming movement can easily use as a wedge.
The Sims 2 attack is probably going to be a serious litmus test for the industry. Can leaving an open framework for adding new skins and models be enough to hold a developer responsible for how a user abuses that? I'm sure plenty here will scream no, but the ESRB has already started to point to yes and has obviously shown a willingness to cave to political pressure.
07/26/2005 (8:16 am)
The problem with the "it's all Rockstar's fault for leaving the content" theory is that ignores just about half of the ESRB statement on the matter.Yeah, Rockstar got slapped for leaving the content on the disc.
They also got slapped because a mod unlocked it. The ESRB clearly does not distinct one from the other:
Quote:The material can only be accessed by downloading a software patch, created by an independent third party without Rockstar's permission, which is now freely available on the internet and through console accessories. Considering the existence of the undisclosed and highly pertinent content on the final discs, compounded by the broad distribution of the third party modification, the credibility and utility of the initial ESRB rating has been seriously undermined
In other words, without the mod ... they probably wouldn't have acted. And they even mention as such in their recommendations to the industry:
Quote:Furthermore, the ESRB calls on the computer and video game industry to proactively protect their games from illegal modifications by third parties, particularly when they serve to undermine the accuracy of the rating.
Nowhere does the ESRB clarify that a modification can only unlock pornographic content on a disc to be considered pertinent. And if they meant that, I think they would have bothered to have clarified it.
And more to the point ... should they? The ESRB is not in the business to watchdog version control or monitor the build process of a developer. They are in the business of warning parents about the content of video games. Now they are in the business of warning parents about the contents of modifiable video games.
To the parent, if their kid can go and download a mod off the internet and turn the previously T or M rated game into pornography, why should the ESRB be making the distinction about the nature of the mod? The parent isn't going to understand this distinction and to the the end result is precisely the same. And that's how the ESRB sees it:
Quote:
"That parent doesn't necessarily know that mods are available for their 13-year-old to go out and find that could radically change the product," said ESRB vice president Patricia Vance. "If the rating itself is being undermined by third-party modification, I think we as an industry need to figure out what to do about that."
Sure, developers understand the thorny nature of user mods ... but parents don't. And developers aren't the ESRB's audience. This is why I wish they hadn't ruled as they did. They've set a horrible precedent here, and one the anti-gaming movement can easily use as a wedge.
The Sims 2 attack is probably going to be a serious litmus test for the industry. Can leaving an open framework for adding new skins and models be enough to hold a developer responsible for how a user abuses that? I'm sure plenty here will scream no, but the ESRB has already started to point to yes and has obviously shown a willingness to cave to political pressure.
#85
07/26/2005 (10:26 am)
Uproar grows over GTA sex scenesQuote:And so it begins...
US politicians have stepped into the storm over secret sex scenes in the best-selling Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game.
The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly called for investigation into the companies behind the game.
...
The controversy reached the halls of Congress on Monday.
The House of Representatives voting 355 to 21 for a federal investigation to determine if the companies behind San Andreas intentionally deceived the industry's ratings board.
"The release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was widely anticipated, but an adults-only rating would have severely limited its sales in retail outlets," said Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan.
"It appears that the publisher has blatantly circumvented the rules in order to peddle sexually explicit material to our youth, and they should be held accountable. A company cannot be allowed to profit from deceit."
#86
They left content in the game like that, whether it was a lazy programmer, a laughing programmer, a decision to save time, or whatever, they made the decision to leave it in there, if they would've screened their content a little better then it wouldn't be in there. They obviously knew it would kick their rating or they would've kept it open in the game, so I do feel like Rockstar is skating the line a bit too much... so I still don't feel bad for them. In my opinion they are giving the rest of us a bad name. Its like when a student in class does something wrong and the whole class gets punished for it. Sure it was unjust to punish the whole class, but that person was to blame as well.
Personally I despise that they have to push the line so much. There are rules, they are clearly explained... this obviously is pushing the rules... why would you leave content that could get you nailed. Hopefully it only ends with Rockstar getting punished, maybe the industry getting a slap on the wrist and a bit stricter enforcements.
I wouldn't mind if they enforced upon mods that open up content already in your game... however I completely think comparing such mods to ones with content made from the user or a third party is 100% ridiculous and naive of the industry and technology... I really don't think something like that would be enforced and if so I doubt it would be upheld long.
07/26/2005 (10:36 am)
To be honest I don't feel bad for them... I feel bad for the implications this may have on the industry, but not for Rockstar. They left content in the game like that, whether it was a lazy programmer, a laughing programmer, a decision to save time, or whatever, they made the decision to leave it in there, if they would've screened their content a little better then it wouldn't be in there. They obviously knew it would kick their rating or they would've kept it open in the game, so I do feel like Rockstar is skating the line a bit too much... so I still don't feel bad for them. In my opinion they are giving the rest of us a bad name. Its like when a student in class does something wrong and the whole class gets punished for it. Sure it was unjust to punish the whole class, but that person was to blame as well.
Personally I despise that they have to push the line so much. There are rules, they are clearly explained... this obviously is pushing the rules... why would you leave content that could get you nailed. Hopefully it only ends with Rockstar getting punished, maybe the industry getting a slap on the wrist and a bit stricter enforcements.
I wouldn't mind if they enforced upon mods that open up content already in your game... however I completely think comparing such mods to ones with content made from the user or a third party is 100% ridiculous and naive of the industry and technology... I really don't think something like that would be enforced and if so I doubt it would be upheld long.
#87
I didn't mention ESRB or any opinions relating to that. I also didn't say its "all Rockstar's fault." I simply said I think Rockstar should take responsibility for what content they put on a commercially sold media product. I also think it is ridiculous if they aren't.
On the other hand since I didn't comment anything beyond that I will now. I do think the third party should be held responsible as well. I also think the ESRB's comments are a bit shortsighted and should only factor what is actually on the disc sold. I think its more than ridiculous for a company to be responsible for content made by other people... but on the same token I think its just as ridiculous for them not to be responsible for content they put on their cd.
I also think if Rockstar rightfully took at least some responsibility for the content they sold then this probalby wouldn't have gone down quite like this. They clearly do not like how deceitful this was... and I agree. They put a game out that is borderline on the ratings. It is obvious that Rockstar had to made modifications to the game to keep the rating below AO. Then they release content on the product they sell (even if hidden - I mean how many discussions have we all had on t hese boards about protecting game assets and the truth that there is no sure fire way) that breaks those rules. This can't be considered good business practice, can it? Its either sneaky, deceitfull, or lazy. If they would've taken at least some responsibility for it then I doubt there would be such a vendetta against "A company cannot be allowed to profit from deceit." Do you disagree?
07/26/2005 (10:48 am)
@Joshua:Quote:The problem with the "it's all Rockstar's fault for leaving the content" theory is that ignores just about half of the ESRB statement on the matter.Responding to me? If not then ignore this.
I didn't mention ESRB or any opinions relating to that. I also didn't say its "all Rockstar's fault." I simply said I think Rockstar should take responsibility for what content they put on a commercially sold media product. I also think it is ridiculous if they aren't.
On the other hand since I didn't comment anything beyond that I will now. I do think the third party should be held responsible as well. I also think the ESRB's comments are a bit shortsighted and should only factor what is actually on the disc sold. I think its more than ridiculous for a company to be responsible for content made by other people... but on the same token I think its just as ridiculous for them not to be responsible for content they put on their cd.
I also think if Rockstar rightfully took at least some responsibility for the content they sold then this probalby wouldn't have gone down quite like this. They clearly do not like how deceitful this was... and I agree. They put a game out that is borderline on the ratings. It is obvious that Rockstar had to made modifications to the game to keep the rating below AO. Then they release content on the product they sell (even if hidden - I mean how many discussions have we all had on t hese boards about protecting game assets and the truth that there is no sure fire way) that breaks those rules. This can't be considered good business practice, can it? Its either sneaky, deceitfull, or lazy. If they would've taken at least some responsibility for it then I doubt there would be such a vendetta against "A company cannot be allowed to profit from deceit." Do you disagree?
#88
i find it backwards that portrayals of realistic, close-to-home violence and general interpersonal extreme shittiness is considered okay for a non-AO rating, but sex isn't.
oh no! two people having sex!
bashing hos with baseball bats, tho, well, that's just a game.
07/26/2005 (10:58 am)
Somewhat ot buti find it backwards that portrayals of realistic, close-to-home violence and general interpersonal extreme shittiness is considered okay for a non-AO rating, but sex isn't.
oh no! two people having sex!
bashing hos with baseball bats, tho, well, that's just a game.
#89
07/26/2005 (11:00 am)
Matthew: Even if it would have been on the cd originally, the game should not have been rated AO. The Sims 2 or GTA: Vice City both offer more detailed "sex", and they are rated T and M.
#90
I completely agree with you Stefan... except that I don't think Sims 2 or GTA had detailed sex... I haven't seen the mod this is over (anyone have any videos since I don't plan on buying the game), though as far as Sims 2 and GTA go they really don't expose much.
EDIT: My point was moreso that they knew the content would kick the rating up (hence the reason behind hiding it) so now they are nailed for it its pretty pathetic to not own up to it.
07/26/2005 (11:03 am)
Quoting myself from earlier :)Quote:For one I agree with you Pat that 17+ is definately an acceptable rating for the game. the "M" rating should've been fine.
I completely agree with you Stefan... except that I don't think Sims 2 or GTA had detailed sex... I haven't seen the mod this is over (anyone have any videos since I don't plan on buying the game), though as far as Sims 2 and GTA go they really don't expose much.
EDIT: My point was moreso that they knew the content would kick the rating up (hence the reason behind hiding it) so now they are nailed for it its pretty pathetic to not own up to it.
#91
No, just a statement in general. I think people are reading into the statement what they'd like to see rather than what's there. I think before people make statements like "The only reason Rockstar is in this mess is because they left the content on the disc and lied about it" should reread the ESRB statement:
http://esrb.com/about_updates.asp#7-20-05
Because it clearly mentions modifications, clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers to monitor them and doesn't ever mention Rockstar's contradictory press statements once.
And as the recent release from the GTA mod community points out ( http://illspirit.com/press_release.html ) ... the content isn't even that big of a deal. The assets were mostly cobbled together from elsewhere in the existing retail sections (probably explaining why Young MayLay had no idea any of this was going on) and as such it's pretty much in line with what the ESRB assumingly had already evaluated the game and granted it as strong sexual content and rated accordingly.
This has a lot more to do with political pressure than some conspiracy of Rockstar's to publish porn or escape an AO rating.
07/26/2005 (11:06 am)
Quote:Responding to me? If not then ignore this.
No, just a statement in general. I think people are reading into the statement what they'd like to see rather than what's there. I think before people make statements like "The only reason Rockstar is in this mess is because they left the content on the disc and lied about it" should reread the ESRB statement:
http://esrb.com/about_updates.asp#7-20-05
Because it clearly mentions modifications, clearly puts the responsibility on the publishers to monitor them and doesn't ever mention Rockstar's contradictory press statements once.
And as the recent release from the GTA mod community points out ( http://illspirit.com/press_release.html ) ... the content isn't even that big of a deal. The assets were mostly cobbled together from elsewhere in the existing retail sections (probably explaining why Young MayLay had no idea any of this was going on) and as such it's pretty much in line with what the ESRB assumingly had already evaluated the game and granted it as strong sexual content and rated accordingly.
This has a lot more to do with political pressure than some conspiracy of Rockstar's to publish porn or escape an AO rating.
#92
I agree completely... which is why I was commenting on Rockstar, since the only thing I personally think should be pointed out is Rockstar's contradictory statements.
When it comes to the ESRB statement I'm not even going to go down that road since I think we all agree that its ridiculous.
07/26/2005 (11:09 am)
Quote:I think before people make statements like "The only reason Rockstar is in this mess is because they left the content on the disc and lied about it" should reread the ESRB statement:
I agree completely... which is why I was commenting on Rockstar, since the only thing I personally think should be pointed out is Rockstar's contradictory statements.
When it comes to the ESRB statement I'm not even going to go down that road since I think we all agree that its ridiculous.
#93
OK, fine. Then take the Sims 2 off the shelves.
Seriously, because they didn't tell the ESRB that kids can download naked skins and simulate orgies in a living room. Least, I highly doubt it. So that's deceitful, by the same standard. And surely the ability to have naked skins is a value add which EA is probably profiting from.
The only reason that doesn't make sense is one of convenience ... not wanting to control user created content as opposed to user "unlocked" content, but parents won't care about that distinction and the ESRB is a body meant to inform parents.
Look, the ESRB doesn't evaluate things disc by disc - the publishers just give them highlights about the game. Until this incident, R* had no reason to think that things not in the game would be a highlight, would they? Nobody was saying "you have to tells us about every asset" until now. Rockstar wasn't being deceitful, the ESRB just wasn't governing what they say they are now.
The ESRB should be in the business of rating what's published, not what's modifiable ... because the results of the latter is either dangerous or untenable or frighteneningly both. This distinction of the content being "findable" as opposed to "addable" makes it easier to police ... sure ... but that's not going to appease the lawyers, politicians and prudes that brought this to the table in the first place.
For instance, right now, you can't enforce tobacoo or alcohol laws either. Every day kids buy both of those under the legal limit. Won't stop these people from trying ... especially since the latest craze is to place video games as a public health concern.
I just wish, and I'm not speaking about anyone specifically, that people would spend more time thinking about how this might effect the industry in general than trying to crucify Rockstar. The latter is just petty and useless, while the former could effect everyone interested in developing games.
07/26/2005 (11:16 am)
Quote:This can't be considered good business practice, can it? Its either sneaky, deceitfull, or lazy. If they would've taken at least some responsibility for it then I doubt there would be such a vendetta against "A company cannot be allowed to profit from deceit." Do you disagree?
OK, fine. Then take the Sims 2 off the shelves.
Seriously, because they didn't tell the ESRB that kids can download naked skins and simulate orgies in a living room. Least, I highly doubt it. So that's deceitful, by the same standard. And surely the ability to have naked skins is a value add which EA is probably profiting from.
The only reason that doesn't make sense is one of convenience ... not wanting to control user created content as opposed to user "unlocked" content, but parents won't care about that distinction and the ESRB is a body meant to inform parents.
Look, the ESRB doesn't evaluate things disc by disc - the publishers just give them highlights about the game. Until this incident, R* had no reason to think that things not in the game would be a highlight, would they? Nobody was saying "you have to tells us about every asset" until now. Rockstar wasn't being deceitful, the ESRB just wasn't governing what they say they are now.
The ESRB should be in the business of rating what's published, not what's modifiable ... because the results of the latter is either dangerous or untenable or frighteneningly both. This distinction of the content being "findable" as opposed to "addable" makes it easier to police ... sure ... but that's not going to appease the lawyers, politicians and prudes that brought this to the table in the first place.
For instance, right now, you can't enforce tobacoo or alcohol laws either. Every day kids buy both of those under the legal limit. Won't stop these people from trying ... especially since the latest craze is to place video games as a public health concern.
I just wish, and I'm not speaking about anyone specifically, that people would spend more time thinking about how this might effect the industry in general than trying to crucify Rockstar. The latter is just petty and useless, while the former could effect everyone interested in developing games.
#94
Oh I agree. Rockstar was a complete ass in how they issued statements on this ... but I think that's being rolled dangerously into the ESRB's far more ridiculous reaction to the affair.
07/26/2005 (11:18 am)
Quote:I agree completely... which is why I was commenting on Rockstar, since the only thing I personally think should be pointed out is Rockstar's contradictory statements.
When it comes to the ESRB statement I'm not even going to go down that road since I think we all agree that its ridiculous.
Oh I agree. Rockstar was a complete ass in how they issued statements on this ... but I think that's being rolled dangerously into the ESRB's far more ridiculous reaction to the affair.
#96
Completely different situation, I tried very clearly to distinguish that I think a company should be responsible for the content they put in and not content others put in, so right now your arguing against me because I agree with you.
They don't, but they should. Parents also should watch what their kids download better, use parental controls on the web and TV instead of complaining about tv stations and game publishers. Just because the parents ignore it doesn't mean its not right. If we went by what parents choose to look at then violent games in the hands of four year olds would be at the fault of game developers.
I disagree completely... you can't completely enforce tobacco or alcholo laws. So we should stop now... let 10 year olds smoke cigarettes and tobacco companies make money off of them?
Thats a completely unrelated issue though, those phsyically damage the body (alcohol when abused). Games do not so they are in completely different context.
You think people haven't? That every who disagrees with you is naive except you... Just because others have a different point than you doesn't mean they haven't seen that aspect...
Personally 90% of what your disputing with me I've already clearly agreed... but no use pointing that out.
No offense and hopefully you don't take this the wrong way, but you should really read peoples comments and only comment on what they actually say. Until then I won't give you the respect of time or a response.
07/26/2005 (11:29 am)
Quote:Seriously, because they didn't tell the ESRB that kids can download naked skins and simulate orgies in a living room. Least, I highly doubt it. So that's deceitful, by the same standard.
Completely different situation, I tried very clearly to distinguish that I think a company should be responsible for the content they put in and not content others put in, so right now your arguing against me because I agree with you.
Quote:The only reason that doesn't make sense is one of convenience ... not wanting to control user created content as opposed to user "unlocked" content, but parents won't care about that distinction and the ESRB is a body meant to inform parents.
They don't, but they should. Parents also should watch what their kids download better, use parental controls on the web and TV instead of complaining about tv stations and game publishers. Just because the parents ignore it doesn't mean its not right. If we went by what parents choose to look at then violent games in the hands of four year olds would be at the fault of game developers.
Quote:For instance, right now, you can't enforce tobacoo or alcohol laws either. Every day kids buy both of those under the legal limit. Won't stop these people from trying
I disagree completely... you can't completely enforce tobacco or alcholo laws. So we should stop now... let 10 year olds smoke cigarettes and tobacco companies make money off of them?
Thats a completely unrelated issue though, those phsyically damage the body (alcohol when abused). Games do not so they are in completely different context.
Quote:that people would spend more time thinking about how this might effect the industry in general than trying to crucify Rockstar. The latter is just petty and useless, while the former could effect everyone interested in developing games.
You think people haven't? That every who disagrees with you is naive except you... Just because others have a different point than you doesn't mean they haven't seen that aspect...
Personally 90% of what your disputing with me I've already clearly agreed... but no use pointing that out.
No offense and hopefully you don't take this the wrong way, but you should really read peoples comments and only comment on what they actually say. Until then I won't give you the respect of time or a response.
#97
I'm glad we can agree on something :) Honestly I don't know if you were thinking it or not but since you were showing only offensive comments towards mine I was starting to think you were out to disagree with everything I said even if you agree. Definatley have more respect for you now.
I agree with the later of that statement too, to me they are two distinctly seperate issues and I agree its dangerously being rolled into one.
07/26/2005 (11:33 am)
Quote:Oh I agree. Rockstar was a complete ass in how they issued statements on this ... but I think that's being rolled dangerously into the ESRB's far more ridiculous reaction to the affair.
I'm glad we can agree on something :) Honestly I don't know if you were thinking it or not but since you were showing only offensive comments towards mine I was starting to think you were out to disagree with everything I said even if you agree. Definatley have more respect for you now.
I agree with the later of that statement too, to me they are two distinctly seperate issues and I agree its dangerously being rolled into one.
#98
Matt, 99% of statements thus far are meant as general and not directed specifically towards you ... the Sims 2 line was just an easy riff to play devil's advocate. I don't think Sims 2 should be pulled off the shelf, I'm just pointing out that by the ESRB's ruling the door is opening for it. And while it might seem somewhat logical to make the distinction between content delived on a disc versus downloaded, the ESRB hasn't made that distinction yet ... and there are some reasons for that.
A lot of this I do mostly agree on ... but when it comes to the ESRB decision specifically it seems people should look at from how the politics will come down and how the ESRB is going to react. I disagree that a parent really should care whether the porn comes from an mod off the net or is unlocked from a mod on the net or that the ESRB should be concerned with either. The parent should be concerned with both equally and the ESRB not at all.
The ESRB should be worried about what is playable from the disc. The parents should be worried about what their kid does on the internet. However instead of admitting that it was their own practices in the first place which allowed this to happen, the ESRB has pushed the responsibility to the publishers to worry about the grey areas.
07/26/2005 (12:04 pm)
Quote:Honestly I don't know if you were thinking it or not but since you were showing only offensive comments towards mine I was starting to think you were out to disagree with everything I said even if you agree.
Matt, 99% of statements thus far are meant as general and not directed specifically towards you ... the Sims 2 line was just an easy riff to play devil's advocate. I don't think Sims 2 should be pulled off the shelf, I'm just pointing out that by the ESRB's ruling the door is opening for it. And while it might seem somewhat logical to make the distinction between content delived on a disc versus downloaded, the ESRB hasn't made that distinction yet ... and there are some reasons for that.
A lot of this I do mostly agree on ... but when it comes to the ESRB decision specifically it seems people should look at from how the politics will come down and how the ESRB is going to react. I disagree that a parent really should care whether the porn comes from an mod off the net or is unlocked from a mod on the net or that the ESRB should be concerned with either. The parent should be concerned with both equally and the ESRB not at all.
The ESRB should be worried about what is playable from the disc. The parents should be worried about what their kid does on the internet. However instead of admitting that it was their own practices in the first place which allowed this to happen, the ESRB has pushed the responsibility to the publishers to worry about the grey areas.
#99
Extrapolating on this statement (which I find to be rediculous):
In order to restrict this kind of entirely user created content, you would have to make it impossible to use any sort of custom content. This is actually an entirely impossible task, though one could make modifications much more difficult through data encryption and verification. It seems like something that would stiffle the industry and the creativity of many talented mod makers. Imagine the additional time investment to make sure that no asset in your game could be under any circumstances compromised by outside materials - the entire use mod community would be shut down. No more cool startups like Counter Strike, no more awesome user created stories for Neverwinter Nights.
Really, it is similar to suing a web browser manufacturer for the ability of their product to display the pornographic content that you or your child willingly searched out on google. It makes no sense - you cannot expect a publisher to be responsible for third party modifications.
Obviously the rockstor situation is somewhat different, as the content is already there, merely *accessed* by third party modification. The existence of the content as part of the original distribution is questionably legal, but content added after the fact by third party mods (as with EA's the Sims) should not be the publisher's responsibility.
Of course the nature of that content is another matter - I personally think that GTA should probably have an "AO" rating based on its other (non-sexual) content, the sex scene is much less severe than the other content, and from what I've seen should probably fall well within the ESRB's classification of "M"
07/26/2005 (2:57 pm)
@Josh R: Awesome amusing article :)Quote:And surely the ability to have naked skins is a value add which EA is probably profiting from.
Extrapolating on this statement (which I find to be rediculous):
In order to restrict this kind of entirely user created content, you would have to make it impossible to use any sort of custom content. This is actually an entirely impossible task, though one could make modifications much more difficult through data encryption and verification. It seems like something that would stiffle the industry and the creativity of many talented mod makers. Imagine the additional time investment to make sure that no asset in your game could be under any circumstances compromised by outside materials - the entire use mod community would be shut down. No more cool startups like Counter Strike, no more awesome user created stories for Neverwinter Nights.
Really, it is similar to suing a web browser manufacturer for the ability of their product to display the pornographic content that you or your child willingly searched out on google. It makes no sense - you cannot expect a publisher to be responsible for third party modifications.
Obviously the rockstor situation is somewhat different, as the content is already there, merely *accessed* by third party modification. The existence of the content as part of the original distribution is questionably legal, but content added after the fact by third party mods (as with EA's the Sims) should not be the publisher's responsibility.
Of course the nature of that content is another matter - I personally think that GTA should probably have an "AO" rating based on its other (non-sexual) content, the sex scene is much less severe than the other content, and from what I've seen should probably fall well within the ESRB's classification of "M"
#100
I don't why you would think it's ridiculous. One of most popular mods I ever wrote for Unreal was the XXXpak. And it didnt' even have any pornographic - but I can guarantee you people found it and downloaded it because they thought it had. Sex sells. Heck, Sims Online had pimps and prostitutes. I don't think we can sit here and eschew all the wonderful values of a mod community and then completely dismiss that porn might not help sell a few titles here and there.
As Matt pointed out - laws don't have to be 100% enforceable to become laws. The ESRB is saying that publishers need to be proactive in making sure that third party mods don't interfere with their ESRB rating. That might be something as dracononian as a DRM system - but I think if anyone institutes that it's because they wanted to use it to fight piracy all along and this was just an excuse.
More likely you'll see new games come out with EULAs which state that modifications can't be released outside the original ESRB rating, and the publisher will have to become a traffic cop much in the same way that companies enforce their copyrights on the current mod community with a pretty frequent tenacity. I mean the whole "mods can't be regulated" isn't really true because they already are to a certain point.
While it's a humorous analogy, it's not a very accurate. I mean, the ESRB isn't going after Microsoft for allowing porn to be displayed using their OS, now are they? I'd say from their perspective they're updating their ratings to keep pace with how games have evolved.
Now I don't agree with them, but it's not entirely crazy. Once again, can we really sit here and talk about how integral mods are to games and then laugh at why the ESRB would suddenly take an interest in them?
Again, I guess I should preface with I agree with you, but I still haven't heard a reason why parents should or would care about this particular distinction. To them, it's all downloadable content which changes a game they purchased from one rating to another. Once the ESRB shifted their focus from playable to modifiable, the landscape shifted.
And it really seems like what the ESRB is saying is, "the rating is our problem. the mods are yours".
07/26/2005 (4:04 pm)
Quote:Extrapolating on this statement (which I find to be rediculous)
I don't why you would think it's ridiculous. One of most popular mods I ever wrote for Unreal was the XXXpak. And it didnt' even have any pornographic - but I can guarantee you people found it and downloaded it because they thought it had. Sex sells. Heck, Sims Online had pimps and prostitutes. I don't think we can sit here and eschew all the wonderful values of a mod community and then completely dismiss that porn might not help sell a few titles here and there.
Quote:In order to restrict this kind of entirely user created content, you would have to make it impossible to use any sort of custom content. This is actually an entirely impossible task, though one could make modifications much more difficult through data encryption and verification. It seems like something that would stiffle the industry and the creativity of many talented mod makers. Imagine the additional time investment to make sure that no asset in your game could be under any circumstances compromised by outside materials - the entire use mod community would be shut down. No more cool startups like Counter Strike, no more awesome user created stories for Neverwinter Nights.
As Matt pointed out - laws don't have to be 100% enforceable to become laws. The ESRB is saying that publishers need to be proactive in making sure that third party mods don't interfere with their ESRB rating. That might be something as dracononian as a DRM system - but I think if anyone institutes that it's because they wanted to use it to fight piracy all along and this was just an excuse.
More likely you'll see new games come out with EULAs which state that modifications can't be released outside the original ESRB rating, and the publisher will have to become a traffic cop much in the same way that companies enforce their copyrights on the current mod community with a pretty frequent tenacity. I mean the whole "mods can't be regulated" isn't really true because they already are to a certain point.
Quote:Really, it is similar to suing a web browser manufacturer for the ability of their product to display the pornographic content that you or your child willingly searched out on google. It makes no sense - you cannot expect a publisher to be responsible for third party modifications.
While it's a humorous analogy, it's not a very accurate. I mean, the ESRB isn't going after Microsoft for allowing porn to be displayed using their OS, now are they? I'd say from their perspective they're updating their ratings to keep pace with how games have evolved.
Now I don't agree with them, but it's not entirely crazy. Once again, can we really sit here and talk about how integral mods are to games and then laugh at why the ESRB would suddenly take an interest in them?
Quote:Obviously the rockstor situation is somewhat different, as the content is already there, merely *accessed* by third party modification. The existence of the content as part of the original distribution is questionably legal, but content added after the fact by third party mods (as with EA's the Sims) should not be the publisher's responsibility.
Again, I guess I should preface with I agree with you, but I still haven't heard a reason why parents should or would care about this particular distinction. To them, it's all downloadable content which changes a game they purchased from one rating to another. Once the ESRB shifted their focus from playable to modifiable, the landscape shifted.
And it really seems like what the ESRB is saying is, "the rating is our problem. the mods are yours".
Torque Owner Joshua Spencer
I really doubt most people take anything he says or does seriously anymore.