I think what the FTC has done is really set a precedent. I don't think they had a problem with third party modders adding content - the issue was that Take 2 had put the content in there in the first place.
This could be useful to other companies. Yes, I'm not so concerned with "OMG! Boobies!" like some people are - but let's face it: the whole Hot Coffee scene was just a bad, bad idea to put in at all, and Take 2 got taken to task for it. If you have models in the game like The Sims 2, at least make sure the "basic" models aren't nakky underneath with full nipple and genitals showing - make 'em like Barbie dolls, and when somebody complains, hold up a naked Ken doll so you can tell them to go after the makers of platic sex toys first.
So make your games, don't fear what third party modders will do - just make sure you don't add *anything* inside that you don't intend to show. (Kind of like my mom used to say: make sure you wear clean underwear, in case you're in an accident.)
"So make your games, don't fear what third party modders will do - just make sure you don't add *anything* inside that you don't intend to show."
The "potentially nude females" part is a little vague though. While the game had mini games formally designed but only accessible by third party software, the bit about potentially nude females runs into one wall. One game might have nude versions of characters that exist but require a third party software to access them. While another may not have nude characters but can be made so with "skins" made by third parties. I wonder if the FTC took that into consideration. Because if they didn't, then they should realize that any female character in any game can be a "potentially nude female". And why is it only bad if the female characters are nude but not the male characters, I wonder? Maybe it's kinda like the NOW celebrating at a male strip club. Hmmm....
Oh, to be sure. That's why I brought up the Barbie and Ken dolls, using them as the standard that's commonly accepted: nude models don't have any details showing. Kind of like girls in some anime - when my 7 year old daughter watches "Magic Knights Rayearth" or "W.I.T.C.H." and the girls transform, they're naked, but like a barbie doll - breasts, but no nipples, so you could claim they're just wearing colored outfits or something.
Oddly enough, I consider this good news, though I fully accept people won't agree with me.
I do consider what Rockstar did to have been somewhat foolish. Not because of the mini-game but because of their failure to take responsiblity for it.
The report also makes it perfectly clear that they do NOT hold the ESRB responsible for the mistake, and indeed more or less state that they were as tricked as anyone else.
Not particuarly good PR news for Rockstar, but then, they are their own worst enemy in that respect at times.
I disagree with you completely on this score, what most people don't realize is that removing all traces of a scene/minigame in a game is many times more complex than it is in a movie, so why is it necessary for game companies to spend large ammounts of money completely eradicating any trace of things they were told to remove, or do we aknowledge that so long as the content is inaccessable without hopping on the internet to get a mod (and lets face it there are worse things accessable on the internet)
Agree, somewhat, but confused too.nightwng2000June 8 2006, 17:00:41 UTC
"Although the FTC concluded that Take-Two and Rockstar used deceptive marketing practices by not revealing that hidden sex animations were on the GTA San Andreas disc, the proposed penalty was quite moderate, at least in economic terms. The ruling is a blow, however, to the public image of both companies as well as the video game industry
( ... )
Re: Agree, somewhat, but confused too.gray17June 9 2006, 01:48:37 UTC
Do they mean they must internally reveiw content first, then send it to the ESRB or what?
Probably. It makes sense. While you needed a mod to access the offending material, it was something that R* and TT didn't mean to get out at all. It could have just as easily been a bug that allowed access. Either way the ESRB was undermined because the removal was botched. The best way to prevent such a problem in the future is to tell a company that screws up like that to do a better job of looking over a game in the first place, before sending it in for a rating.
Yes, I also totally agree with the ruling. As the FTC seem to be a pretty smart bunch. They really ignore the whole "videogames" are bad angle, and just talk about the failings of R* and its publisher Take Two. They also realize the reason this happened, and tried to find a solution for future problems, instead of tearing them a new one. I think TT and the industry should be thanking the FTC for handling this properly.
However, I reading the press release, it could easily be spun in a way by news outlets and politicans to use as ammunition...
Comments 49
This could be useful to other companies. Yes, I'm not so concerned with "OMG! Boobies!" like some people are - but let's face it: the whole Hot Coffee scene was just a bad, bad idea to put in at all, and Take 2 got taken to task for it. If you have models in the game like The Sims 2, at least make sure the "basic" models aren't nakky underneath with full nipple and genitals showing - make 'em like Barbie dolls, and when somebody complains, hold up a naked Ken doll so you can tell them to go after the makers of platic sex toys first.
So make your games, don't fear what third party modders will do - just make sure you don't add *anything* inside that you don't intend to show. (Kind of like my mom used to say: make sure you wear clean underwear, in case you're in an accident.)
Reply
The "potentially nude females" part is a little vague though. While the game had mini games formally designed but only accessible by third party software, the bit about potentially nude females runs into one wall. One game might have nude versions of characters that exist but require a third party software to access them. While another may not have nude characters but can be made so with "skins" made by third parties. I wonder if the FTC took that into consideration. Because if they didn't, then they should realize that any female character in any game can be a "potentially nude female". And why is it only bad if the female characters are nude but not the male characters, I wonder? Maybe it's kinda like the NOW celebrating at a male strip club. Hmmm....
nightwng2000
Reply
Reply
Reply
I do consider what Rockstar did to have been somewhat foolish. Not because of the mini-game but because of their failure to take responsiblity for it.
The report also makes it perfectly clear that they do NOT hold the ESRB responsible for the mistake, and indeed more or less state that they were as tricked as anyone else.
Not particuarly good PR news for Rockstar, but then, they are their own worst enemy in that respect at times.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Probably. It makes sense. While you needed a mod to access the offending material, it was something that R* and TT didn't mean to get out at all. It could have just as easily been a bug that allowed access. Either way the ESRB was undermined because the removal was botched. The best way to prevent such a problem in the future is to tell a company that screws up like that to do a better job of looking over a game in the first place, before sending it in for a rating.
Reply
Reply
Reply
However, I reading the press release, it could easily be spun in a way by news outlets and politicans to use as ammunition...
Reply
Leave a comment