Log in

No account? Create an account
20 July 2005 @ 04:16 pm
[Why] are people up in arms about this?  
I think the ESRB's order to recall all unsold copies of GTA:SA until it removes the porn easter-eggs, OR to give remaining copies an Adults Only label, is completely justified and not at all ridiculous. Simple as that. Sure, the content isn't easily accessible, but neither is, say, the end of a game, or basically anything that can happen if you put in a code or two. Fact is, it's there, Rockstar fucked up in not removing it, and they're right in receiving legal heat about it.

People should be glad that Rockstar is still planning on releasing the game without the adult content, and there aren't major punishments being handed out left and right. Everything seems perfectly reasonable to me.
$40 for an eigthxaiero on July 21st, 2005 01:36 am (UTC)
Yeah. It's frickin bullshit. Gah. Are they gonna recall the Sims now, too? And ALL of the Tomb Raider games?
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on July 21st, 2005 03:19 am (UTC)
Please re-read the post.
jdm_deetsjdm_deets on July 21st, 2005 01:47 am (UTC)
The problem most people have with it is that the actual material that's drawing all the fire is nothing worse than what's in an R movie. It's not explicit, anyway, and no more pornographic than the sex minigame in God of War. That in combination with the fact that it's hard to get at just makes it doubly ridiculous.
N. Greenenategreene on July 21st, 2005 01:54 am (UTC)
You have to modify the game to get at it. It IS bullshit, and Take-Two Interactive is going to pay through the nose for it.

I cannot wait to see the lawsuit for this one --- I mean, this is the first mod I have heard of that will actually COST the game company money.

...but I think the guy who did it was Dutch. I'd love to see how they are going to really deal with this.
Andyddrmallrat on July 21st, 2005 05:24 am (UTC)
Turns out it wasn't a mod, they fessed up to lying about it, as it's in the PS2 version also, and everyone knows you can't just add content to a PS23 game.
N. Greenenategreene on July 21st, 2005 05:26 am (UTC)
You still have to run a Gameshark-like disc to get at it.

And it is just some messed up hex shit to enable stuff, so it really isn't a 'mod', per se.
Andyddrmallrat on July 21st, 2005 05:30 am (UTC)
Exactly, the content was included on the disc, just not reported. Not like it mattters.
N. Greenenategreene on July 21st, 2005 05:32 am (UTC)

brandon johnsonpiratezim on July 21st, 2005 01:41 pm (UTC)
Psycho Joepsyjoe_dilandau on July 21st, 2005 02:04 am (UTC)
I think Rockstar won this battle because the AO rating allows them to fully include the sex scenes in future versions of GTA:SA without the need for hacking or cheat devices. Sure, Wal-Mart will no longer carry it (as opposed to the REAL GUNS some stores sell) but the hype alone from all this sex publicity will guarantee sales. The only ones who really miss out on this are the kids who weren't allowed to buy this game in the first place and stores with wacky morals like Wal-Mart that won't reap the sales.
INSERT INFORMATION HEREparadoxx181 on July 21st, 2005 04:29 am (UTC)
Shit, i need to buy a copy before i get the censored version! XD
Andyddrmallrat on July 21st, 2005 05:27 am (UTC)
Major punishments?
I'd say an 11% stock value drop is major. I'd say Rockstar being responsible for every returned game from retailers is major. I'd say the fact hollywood isn't carrying it anymore will hurt Rockstar AND Hollywood, as it will most stores.

I think you need to make a poll, I think you are probably a very very small minority in your opinion but I'm curious.
Elliott Kelleyhastis_epigeios on July 21st, 2005 05:40 am (UTC)
that's not a major punishments though, that's just major reactions.

it's Rockstar's fault. the consumers are just doing what consumers do: refusing to buy a game for their kids that has content like this on it.
the drop in stock value is to comply with the law of demand.
Rockstar is not only "being" responsible, Rockstar is responsible.
i don't know about Hollywood. is that an example of a non-AO store? if so, then Rockstar should have known what was going to happen, or at least guessed.
N. Greenenategreene on July 21st, 2005 05:33 am (UTC)
I still think they could have a decent suit against the kid who released Hot Coffee.

...I mean, they could argue that Rockstar did leave it there...but come on, I'm sure they could hire a decent attourney.
big_fluffy01big_fluffy01 on July 21st, 2005 09:10 am (UTC)
Agreed. That having been said, I kind of wish they'd just slap on a different rating as opposed to releasing a censored second edition.
(Anonymous) on July 21st, 2005 08:50 pm (UTC)
Doesn't anyone see the irony in the big deal over sex content in a game filled with a whole variety of anti-social and violent actions?