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
#2
This is why I'm planning on releasing games as two (or more) audience sensitive copies. One to cater to human beings, the others to cater to restricted age limits (if need be), and they both can work seamlessly together.
- Ronixus
07/21/2005 (5:42 am)
Blah, blah, blah...This is why I'm planning on releasing games as two (or more) audience sensitive copies. One to cater to human beings, the others to cater to restricted age limits (if need be), and they both can work seamlessly together.
- Ronixus
#3
07/21/2005 (7:55 am)
Rodney, in that case, shouldn't ratings be based on what the engine is capable of providing with third party mods? Make the Sims AO because there's probably a few dozen 'adult' modifications? I mean, the capability is in the code, and anyone with access to said hacks probably knows how to get them.
#4
Get out of here! >:)
- Ronixus
07/21/2005 (8:06 am)
Hehe, good point, I guess no more Mario Paint for Johnny, either, don't want him making something unqouth (sp?) to show to his mommy!Get out of here! >:)
- Ronixus
#5
They shipped this content. Period. That's a totally different issue.
And, mind you, we're not talking about errant lines of "stray" code either. We're talking about art assets, models, skins, animations and every other facet it took to make that "locked" segment work.
Do I believe for one second that this was accidental? No.
Can I prove it? No.
Regardless of our individual opinions, you have to admit that they made a bad situation worse by lying about it.
This isn't about 3rd party additions to the game, it's about what was shipped. Period.
I was going to post a link to Penny Arcade's witty satire of the situation - but it appears that their DB is having "issues" today. =\
07/21/2005 (8:10 am)
That's not the same thing guys.They shipped this content. Period. That's a totally different issue.
And, mind you, we're not talking about errant lines of "stray" code either. We're talking about art assets, models, skins, animations and every other facet it took to make that "locked" segment work.
Do I believe for one second that this was accidental? No.
Can I prove it? No.
Regardless of our individual opinions, you have to admit that they made a bad situation worse by lying about it.
This isn't about 3rd party additions to the game, it's about what was shipped. Period.
I was going to post a link to Penny Arcade's witty satire of the situation - but it appears that their DB is having "issues" today. =\
#6
07/21/2005 (8:19 am)
Unsolicited 'questionable' material should not be fostered upon unsuspecting Consumers. Covering up is a bad practice. Look at the Risk Exposure this caused. There is such a thing as being 'too' clever, no? Idiots. 
#7
Personally I think Rockstar should be ashamed for the BS way that they have handled this and their lack of intelligence in the first place in doing something like this regardless if it was to ship or not. If these guys are intelligent enough to make a game they are intelligent enough to know what is appropriate and not for the audience that they are shipping it to. My biggest beef right now is that these clowns refuse to own up to what they did and are helping to make a situation way worse than it needs to be (thanks guys).
In regards to whether or not this will affect any of us here. I damn well hope that it does. Everyone needs a healthy dose of reality check to remind them what we are doing, how we are doing it and most importantly why. If you want to play in this business, even as a hobby, you still need to follow the rules.
Logan
07/21/2005 (8:22 am)
The fact is that everyone sticks there hand in the cookie jar when no one is looking for a quick snack. The problem with GTA San Andreas is that Rockstar got nabbed red handed and while they were in the process of pulling their hand and vehemently denying any knowledge of this, their hand got stuck in the jar.Personally I think Rockstar should be ashamed for the BS way that they have handled this and their lack of intelligence in the first place in doing something like this regardless if it was to ship or not. If these guys are intelligent enough to make a game they are intelligent enough to know what is appropriate and not for the audience that they are shipping it to. My biggest beef right now is that these clowns refuse to own up to what they did and are helping to make a situation way worse than it needs to be (thanks guys).
In regards to whether or not this will affect any of us here. I damn well hope that it does. Everyone needs a healthy dose of reality check to remind them what we are doing, how we are doing it and most importantly why. If you want to play in this business, even as a hobby, you still need to follow the rules.
Logan
#8
I highly disagree... a company should be responsible for what they put in their distributed media, why wouldn't they be? Making them responsible for everyones modifications to their own media is a whole other issue, they aren't officially supporting that content and definately aren't including that content. To say a company shouldn't be responsible for what they sell sounds completely ridiculous to me. You put it in what you sell its your fault... you outsource work and put that in what you sell its still your fault. Thats where research and trust in who you outscource to comes into play.
07/21/2005 (8:32 am)
Quote:shouldn't ratings be based on what the engine is capable of providing with third party mods?
I highly disagree... a company should be responsible for what they put in their distributed media, why wouldn't they be? Making them responsible for everyones modifications to their own media is a whole other issue, they aren't officially supporting that content and definately aren't including that content. To say a company shouldn't be responsible for what they sell sounds completely ridiculous to me. You put it in what you sell its your fault... you outsource work and put that in what you sell its still your fault. Thats where research and trust in who you outscource to comes into play.
#9
This is really a non-issue from a legal (or any other standpoint).
As an example, if Ford Motor Company puts out a faulty engine, and I sue as a result of buying one, that's one thing.
If the engine wasn't faulty and I sue them because I was able to mount a blower to the d@mn thing and injure myself during operation, or some other such scenario, I'm going to get laughed out of court.
People really ARE responsible for their own actions... whether they want to be or not.
07/21/2005 (8:36 am)
One more thought on the original post:Quote:
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?
This is really a non-issue from a legal (or any other standpoint).
As an example, if Ford Motor Company puts out a faulty engine, and I sue as a result of buying one, that's one thing.
If the engine wasn't faulty and I sue them because I was able to mount a blower to the d@mn thing and injure myself during operation, or some other such scenario, I'm going to get laughed out of court.
People really ARE responsible for their own actions... whether they want to be or not.
#10
Kirby, for now, yes. But do you honestly think this will be the last time it happens? Now that anti-game activists have their hands on something 'evil', they're going to hold on to it for a long time. But it's not limited to games, either. Hell, using Poser it's possible to make all manners of porn, stuff that would get you jailed in real life. Kids can buy Poser, nobody cares. Why the double standard?
"If these guys are intelligent enough to make a game they are intelligent enough to know what is appropriate and not for the audience that they are shipping it to."
Mr Foster, I think it is quite clear that this game is nowhere near aimed at children. Even before, it wasn't supposed to be played by anyone under 17. They may play it, the same way 12 year olds end up with porn magazines under their bed, it just happens. Should games be restricted in content because parents and retailers choose to ignore these guidelines? Why should the onus rest on the developer? If they make an adult game that ends up in the hands of a minor, why aren't the parents blamed? Or even the kid, for having something it's quite obvious he's not supposed to have?
Granted, Rockstar are bumbling about trying to cover their arses, but that's to be expected. They're guilty as accused, I'm not disputing that. It is almost a granted, though, that any kid with access to the net and enough knowledge to download the mod is quite familiar with porn, anyway.
07/21/2005 (8:41 am)
"This isn't about 3rd party additions to the game, it's about what was shipped. Period."Kirby, for now, yes. But do you honestly think this will be the last time it happens? Now that anti-game activists have their hands on something 'evil', they're going to hold on to it for a long time. But it's not limited to games, either. Hell, using Poser it's possible to make all manners of porn, stuff that would get you jailed in real life. Kids can buy Poser, nobody cares. Why the double standard?
"If these guys are intelligent enough to make a game they are intelligent enough to know what is appropriate and not for the audience that they are shipping it to."
Mr Foster, I think it is quite clear that this game is nowhere near aimed at children. Even before, it wasn't supposed to be played by anyone under 17. They may play it, the same way 12 year olds end up with porn magazines under their bed, it just happens. Should games be restricted in content because parents and retailers choose to ignore these guidelines? Why should the onus rest on the developer? If they make an adult game that ends up in the hands of a minor, why aren't the parents blamed? Or even the kid, for having something it's quite obvious he's not supposed to have?
Granted, Rockstar are bumbling about trying to cover their arses, but that's to be expected. They're guilty as accused, I'm not disputing that. It is almost a granted, though, that any kid with access to the net and enough knowledge to download the mod is quite familiar with porn, anyway.
#11
Rockstar didn't create the code that unlocked the content. I doubt they left it in there with the intent of anyone finding it, games (especially console games) are quite often shipped with truckloads of crap left over from development.
"People really ARE responsible for their own actions... whether they want to be or not."
Exactly. Seeing as sex in GTA _is not availible_ in the vanilla, shipped version WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODIFICATIONS, why is it causing a ruckus?
07/21/2005 (8:46 am)
"Making them responsible for everyones modifications to their own media is a whole other issue, they aren't officially supporting that content and definately aren't including that content"Rockstar didn't create the code that unlocked the content. I doubt they left it in there with the intent of anyone finding it, games (especially console games) are quite often shipped with truckloads of crap left over from development.
"People really ARE responsible for their own actions... whether they want to be or not."
Exactly. Seeing as sex in GTA _is not availible_ in the vanilla, shipped version WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODIFICATIONS, why is it causing a ruckus?
#12
I refer you to my previous post.
07/21/2005 (8:46 am)
Quote:Kirby, for now, yes. But do you honestly think this will be the last time it happens? Now that anti-game activists have their hands on something 'evil', they're going to hold on to it for a long time. But it's not limited to games, either. Hell, using Poser it's possible to make all manners of porn, stuff that would get you jailed in real life. Kids can buy Poser, nobody cares. Why the double standard?
I refer you to my previous post.
#13
07/21/2005 (8:56 am)
@Matt, perhaps because a loaded gun, whether concealed or not, is still a loaded gun. Before any quips, I'm making a metaphor here...
#14
Maybe not the last but with things being handled quick and firm I highly doubt another studio will be so daring... hell if I had even considered it before hand I wouldn't even consider it now, in fact I'd double check all my released media to make sure nothing slipped in. This is the first time, they're making an example and quite honestly Rockstar deserves it, maybe even moreso.
Not even comparable... that is content a kid made on their own, not content released with Poser. If I give you a CD with some improper content buried down inside it and you find it of course I'm at fault.
Making your own creations with something is much different than someone releasing it. Sure they didn't leave it open but they included this media with their official release. Hence they are responsible for anything on it.
For one I'm sure Rockstar had a way to unlock it, for all you know this could be that same code leaked out of Rockstar. Plus whether you hide it or not its still on there... why wouldn't you be responsible for what you put on the CD... sure if they said that they put it on there and that the age should be upped then it would be fine, but they didn't. In our society these days we have limits... there are movies with limits, there are products with limits. If you fall within those areas you have to play by the rules, plain and simple, argue it until your face is red the fact remains...
07/21/2005 (8:57 am)
Quote:But do you honestly think this will be the last time it happens?
Maybe not the last but with things being handled quick and firm I highly doubt another studio will be so daring... hell if I had even considered it before hand I wouldn't even consider it now, in fact I'd double check all my released media to make sure nothing slipped in. This is the first time, they're making an example and quite honestly Rockstar deserves it, maybe even moreso.
Quote:Hell, using Poser it's possible to make all manners of porn, stuff that would get you jailed in real life. Kids can buy Poser, nobody cares. Why the double standard?
Not even comparable... that is content a kid made on their own, not content released with Poser. If I give you a CD with some improper content buried down inside it and you find it of course I'm at fault.
Making your own creations with something is much different than someone releasing it. Sure they didn't leave it open but they included this media with their official release. Hence they are responsible for anything on it.
Quote:Rockstar didn't create the code that unlocked the content.
For one I'm sure Rockstar had a way to unlock it, for all you know this could be that same code leaked out of Rockstar. Plus whether you hide it or not its still on there... why wouldn't you be responsible for what you put on the CD... sure if they said that they put it on there and that the age should be upped then it would be fine, but they didn't. In our society these days we have limits... there are movies with limits, there are products with limits. If you fall within those areas you have to play by the rules, plain and simple, argue it until your face is red the fact remains...
#15
07/21/2005 (9:02 am)
If you put your name on a disc and sell it you better be prepared to be responsible for whats in it. 
#16
07/21/2005 (9:05 am)
My feeling is the company should only be responsible (and the game should only be rated) based on what is in the content when it's released, or in any official patches. As a parent, I should be responsible for controlling what my child downloads on the web anyway, so if he downloads an X-rated add-on, that's my fault, not the company's.
#17
Then how exactly did this end up in the PS2 version?
-> PA's DB is back up.
What thrid party mods were required to access this content on the PS2 other than a predefined sequence of events?
I'm not sure you have your facts straight regarding all that's been going on with this particular issue.
Players aren't having to reverse engineer the GTA engine or anything of that nature - the issue becomes that the content IS availble in vanilla shipped version.
It's causing a ruckus because Rockstar shipped metrial that many do not deem appropriate for underage viewing - at least not without parental consent and/or guidance.
The reason we have ratings systems is not to restrict what types of games are made, but to provide parents and gaurdians a tool through which to gage content as being acceptable or unacceptable for the children they're responsible for.
Like it or not, we're still operating (industry-wide) under the legacy perception that video games are for "kids". You don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it if you want to work in this industry.
Placing and shipping hidden content like this circumvents that system. Why would you not think that it would get the powers that be "up-in-arms"?
Furthermore, if they (rockstar) really left this in there without the intent of anyone finding it - a scenario I deem entirely unlikely and downright laughable - why leave it in there in the first place?
None of it was necessary to run the "vanilla" version right?
No, Rockstar got caught lying. Plain and simple, and they will undoubtedly have their feet held to the fire for it. Rightfully so IMO. You can't circumvent the system and expect their to be no repercussions. That's just plain ignorant IMO.
If you don't want to play by the rules - get the h3ll out of the game.
Yeah, I know, my stance is rigid, but to each their own. =\ At least read the PA strip and get a laugh out of it though. (C:
~ I'm out.
07/21/2005 (9:50 am)
Quote:Rockstar didn't create the code that unlocked the content
Then how exactly did this end up in the PS2 version?
-> PA's DB is back up.
Quote:Exactly. Seeing as sex in GTA _is not availible_ in the vanilla, shipped version WITHOUT THIRD PARTY MODIFICATIONS, why is it causing a ruckus?
What thrid party mods were required to access this content on the PS2 other than a predefined sequence of events?
I'm not sure you have your facts straight regarding all that's been going on with this particular issue.
Players aren't having to reverse engineer the GTA engine or anything of that nature - the issue becomes that the content IS availble in vanilla shipped version.
It's causing a ruckus because Rockstar shipped metrial that many do not deem appropriate for underage viewing - at least not without parental consent and/or guidance.
The reason we have ratings systems is not to restrict what types of games are made, but to provide parents and gaurdians a tool through which to gage content as being acceptable or unacceptable for the children they're responsible for.
Like it or not, we're still operating (industry-wide) under the legacy perception that video games are for "kids". You don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it if you want to work in this industry.
Placing and shipping hidden content like this circumvents that system. Why would you not think that it would get the powers that be "up-in-arms"?
Furthermore, if they (rockstar) really left this in there without the intent of anyone finding it - a scenario I deem entirely unlikely and downright laughable - why leave it in there in the first place?
None of it was necessary to run the "vanilla" version right?
No, Rockstar got caught lying. Plain and simple, and they will undoubtedly have their feet held to the fire for it. Rightfully so IMO. You can't circumvent the system and expect their to be no repercussions. That's just plain ignorant IMO.
If you don't want to play by the rules - get the h3ll out of the game.
Yeah, I know, my stance is rigid, but to each their own. =\ At least read the PA strip and get a laugh out of it though. (C:
~ I'm out.
#18
But seriously, having mini-games based on sex is considered adults only, yet you can get a dildo and beat police officers to death with it...There's even a mission where you have to date a BDSM woman, killing her 'boyfriend' and dressing up in leather to obtain a keycard. The game takes place in an exagerrated cartoon version of the 90s, they say Motherf**er and nigg* every 30 seconds. And that doesn't require any cheat to access, it's all there.
I just think the ESRB ratings could be useful if they really helped parents buy games for their kids. But I think this is just ridiculous. If you have a kid, you just don't buy him San Andreas, plain and simple.
This ratings system is needed, but maybe its categories should stand for something. Right now? Sorry, but I think the distinction between Mature and adults only is debatable depending on your point of view, thus it is flawed.
What reasoning goes on in the parent's head when he picks up a copy specifically for his kid?
I think the responsibility of parents is seriously under-rated.
If the kids can get access to this illegal patch or cheat or whatever it is, then they probably can surf porn sites anyways. And what prevents him from downloading a pirated copy from torrents? Modded Ps2s are pretty common, and I'm sure there are a bunch of kids who make copies for their friends.
And countless games ship with unused content. Not sex games per say, but unused levels, enemies, etc. Even super mario bros. 3 has some unaccessible content.
Whatever, more publicity for Rockstar, plain and simple.
Just my opinion, feel free to disagree with it, as I disagree with yours :)
07/21/2005 (10:48 am)
Rockstar lied, and I think it's a smart thing that they go with the AO rating the ESRB imposed on GTA:SA.But seriously, having mini-games based on sex is considered adults only, yet you can get a dildo and beat police officers to death with it...There's even a mission where you have to date a BDSM woman, killing her 'boyfriend' and dressing up in leather to obtain a keycard. The game takes place in an exagerrated cartoon version of the 90s, they say Motherf**er and nigg* every 30 seconds. And that doesn't require any cheat to access, it's all there.
I just think the ESRB ratings could be useful if they really helped parents buy games for their kids. But I think this is just ridiculous. If you have a kid, you just don't buy him San Andreas, plain and simple.
This ratings system is needed, but maybe its categories should stand for something. Right now? Sorry, but I think the distinction between Mature and adults only is debatable depending on your point of view, thus it is flawed.
What reasoning goes on in the parent's head when he picks up a copy specifically for his kid?
I think the responsibility of parents is seriously under-rated.
If the kids can get access to this illegal patch or cheat or whatever it is, then they probably can surf porn sites anyways. And what prevents him from downloading a pirated copy from torrents? Modded Ps2s are pretty common, and I'm sure there are a bunch of kids who make copies for their friends.
And countless games ship with unused content. Not sex games per say, but unused levels, enemies, etc. Even super mario bros. 3 has some unaccessible content.
Whatever, more publicity for Rockstar, plain and simple.
Just my opinion, feel free to disagree with it, as I disagree with yours :)
#19
I think this current situation is somewhat straightforward. In my OPINION, what I can see happening is that DMA put the content in initially as either part of the domestic release or as feature-add for foreign markets that have less of a problem with it. It seems like it was pretty borderline (based on descriptions) - it's "semi-explicit" (certain body parts are not shown). Then they disabled it to prevent an AO rating domestically. Now, why they didn't take more extreme measures to eliminate the content we may never know. Maybe they were pressed for time and they believed it would never be discovered. Maybe the developers wanted to enable it themselves in the final version to show their friends. Maybe it was a sneaky underhanded trick to "leak" the Hot Coffee mod to increase sales (and I'm willing to bet that sales have SPIKED with this controversy).
In any case, they did an insufficient job of removing that content from the game, and they got nailed for it.
My concern is where that will lead. The whole "law of unintended consequences." This is content that is NOT POSSIBLE TO VIEW without intentionally modifying your game. What's next? If you have a game that includes a web browser piece, and someone can make a quick hack so that your browser window points to an adult site, is your game now to receive an AO rating? They only had to change a few bytes in your code to make that change...
So I get worried that this opens the door to all kinds of attacks on the game industry. For what it's worth, I don't believe any of this is the ESRB's fault - how the heck were they supposed to know that there was hidden, disabled content in the game?
07/21/2005 (11:06 am)
I am indecisive.I think this current situation is somewhat straightforward. In my OPINION, what I can see happening is that DMA put the content in initially as either part of the domestic release or as feature-add for foreign markets that have less of a problem with it. It seems like it was pretty borderline (based on descriptions) - it's "semi-explicit" (certain body parts are not shown). Then they disabled it to prevent an AO rating domestically. Now, why they didn't take more extreme measures to eliminate the content we may never know. Maybe they were pressed for time and they believed it would never be discovered. Maybe the developers wanted to enable it themselves in the final version to show their friends. Maybe it was a sneaky underhanded trick to "leak" the Hot Coffee mod to increase sales (and I'm willing to bet that sales have SPIKED with this controversy).
In any case, they did an insufficient job of removing that content from the game, and they got nailed for it.
My concern is where that will lead. The whole "law of unintended consequences." This is content that is NOT POSSIBLE TO VIEW without intentionally modifying your game. What's next? If you have a game that includes a web browser piece, and someone can make a quick hack so that your browser window points to an adult site, is your game now to receive an AO rating? They only had to change a few bytes in your code to make that change...
So I get worried that this opens the door to all kinds of attacks on the game industry. For what it's worth, I don't believe any of this is the ESRB's fault - how the heck were they supposed to know that there was hidden, disabled content in the game?
#20
I don't disagree with you here one bit - there are a lot of parents out there who pay no attention what-so-ever to the types of media influences their children are exposed to - that's on them.
My issue is that this type of action circumvents the ratings that are currently in place, effectively reducing existing parental control for those parents who DO pay attention to what their children are exposed to.
Just because little Johnny CAN access porn on the internet, are we to throw our hands in the air and tell their parnets "well, they can do it anyway"?
Wow. That's lame.
What's more is, for a company to take that position publicy, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot - if not the head.
Does the ESRB need clearer guidlines for what constitutes AO vs. Mature content? Yes, they do - but how in the world does that admonish Rockstar's responsibility under the system we currently have?
It doesn't.
I don't think they need to be flogged or antyhing, but for cripes sake, you can't seriously have expected to a nonchalant response to something like this. Could you?
07/21/2005 (11:22 am)
Well, I'll admit that the distinction between AO and Mature needs more clarity, but...Quote:What reasoning goes on in the parent's head when he picks up a copy specifically for his kid?
I think the responsibility of parents is seriously under-rated.
I don't disagree with you here one bit - there are a lot of parents out there who pay no attention what-so-ever to the types of media influences their children are exposed to - that's on them.
My issue is that this type of action circumvents the ratings that are currently in place, effectively reducing existing parental control for those parents who DO pay attention to what their children are exposed to.
Just because little Johnny CAN access porn on the internet, are we to throw our hands in the air and tell their parnets "well, they can do it anyway"?
Wow. That's lame.
What's more is, for a company to take that position publicy, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot - if not the head.
Does the ESRB need clearer guidlines for what constitutes AO vs. Mature content? Yes, they do - but how in the world does that admonish Rockstar's responsibility under the system we currently have?
It doesn't.
I don't think they need to be flogged or antyhing, but for cripes sake, you can't seriously have expected to a nonchalant response to something like this. Could you?
Torque 3D Owner Rodney (OldRod) Burns