Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Entertainment Games

Grandma Sues Over Hot Coffee Mod 270

Posted by Zonk from the you-so-stupid dept.
Bond_James writes "Ars Technica is reporting that an 85-year old New York woman has filed a civil suit against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive. She alleges that the defendants 'engaged in misleading and deceptive practices in packaging and selling' the game, which she purchased for her 14-year old grandson. This will be interesting, and scary, to watch unfold in the courtrooms. Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grandma Sues Over Hot Coffee Mod More

Grandma Sues Over Hot Coffee Mod

Comments Filter:

  • Wow, people are fools (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Altizar ( 736406 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:50AM (#13187027)
    The story says she bought the game in 2004, that means it was the ps2 version. The only way to accees the mod for that version is if you have a modchip and manualy modify the files (or so every other story says). Anyway is it not her fault for buying a 14 year old a game desgined for 17+.
    • Perhaps it's because this story has been on every other news site and blog and newsgroup in the world...nah, if wasn't on Slashdot it didn't happen.

    • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:00PM (#13187155) Homepage
      From what I read, it doesn't mention if this woman's grandson even accessed the Hot Coffee game anyway. If that's true, then she's just suing R* because 'it's there' and that offends her.

      Not only that, but it looks like she's filing the suit on her behalf as well as that of everyone deceived into buying a game that should have been rating AO. If she's suing on behalf of a group, shouldn't this be a class action suit? If not, she better not get much out of it.

      Go grandma, go and represent everyone who bought this game for kids under 17 without recognizing that the game is pretty damned offensive without the mod.

      • Not only that, but it looks like she's filing the suit on her behalf as well as that of everyone deceived into buying a game that should have been rating AO. If she's suing on behalf of a group, shouldn't this be a class action suit? If not, she better not get much out of it.

        It probably intends to become a class action suit. She files as an individual, her lawyer gets press and gets 9 more claimants, then requests the court to certify the "victims" as a class; then other law firms jump on the bandwagon in a
    • I may be off here, and I'm asking because I'm unfamiliar with the games rating system.

      Doesn't the rating system say WHY it got the rating? Say "M 17+ for Violence"?

      Perhaps the Grandmother and her grandson's parents were "OK" with the violence but had serious objections about sexual content which they had no idea was accessable on the game. Even it you had to jump through hoops to get at the content...

      Had the game said something about Sexual Content, I doubt this would be an issue.

      Isn't there a rating for
      • I'll answer my own question:

        Run down on the ratings system. [esrb.org]

        Yup. If the "content descriptor" didn't include the fact that there was "sexual content", grandma's got a pretty good case.

        But what are her real 'damages'?
        • Considering the complete lack of genitalia in the hidden scenes, and the fact that CJ is completely clothed the whole time, it's debatable whether it even contains "graphic sexual content and nudity". As far as that goes, it may not even deserve an AO rating (at least for the sexual situations). If this were the movie equivelent, it would be an "R" rating.

          Not that it matters, really, since I personally think the "AO" was punitive, and intended to show that the ESRB was taking this seriously

      • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:06PM (#13187261) Journal
        I'm looking at the package for my PC version of SA right now.

        On the back it describes the reasons for being rated Mature. Here they are.

        1. Blood and Gore
        2. Intense Violence.
        3. Strong Language.
        4. Strong Sexual Content
        5. Use Of Drugs.

        With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence.
        • If thats the case, and her version of the game reflects what you state, then she really doesn't have much of a case.

          Of course, reading the "rating guide", and being familiar with the "hot coffee mod" and what it lets you view, an "ADULT" rating might have been more appropriate here.

          She may still have an argument -- a weak argument, but enough so it doesn't get tossed out of court.
          • Right, because 1 year (M=17, AO=18) makes so much difference.
            • Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.
              • Unfortunately, in a court of law it does.

                What's unfortunate is Rockstar is REMOVING THE CONTENT, -and- changing the rating to AO... where's the sense in this? If it's being told they need an AO rating because ofo this content, I say they unlock that shit and rerelease the game as AO. If they're removing said content, they should be left with their M rating, in either case it's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in this case, say if she bought her 17y/o a copy of the game then realized it had sexual conten
                • Good point. I'm reminded of a Bill Hicks routine about interactive porn. I don't recall the specifics off hand, but he basically said that if you're going to be doing porno, you shouldn't be coy about it. If GTA:SA is going to get an AO rating, they should go wild on the stuff they're going to put in the re-release. Enable every last bit of "strong sexual content" possible.
        • I completely agree, but I have a more lax attitude towards sex whereas most of America is pretty uptight about the subject. The sad truth of the matter is that America sees a big different between 'Strong Sexual Content' and 'Explicit Sexual Content'

        • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:4, Insightful)

          by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:44PM (#13187742) Homepage Journal
          "With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence."

          That's simple to explain: Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence. Parents think the way to prevent this is to pretend sex doesn't exist.

          I don't think it's shocking at all. Then again, at my 10 year high school reunion, I'm going to reunite with a number of people that have 12 year old kids.
          • Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence.

            Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final.

            • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:5, Insightful)

              by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:56PM (#13188576) Homepage Journal
              "Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final." .. and far less frequent than teen pregnancy.

              Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.

              I honestly don't understand why this concept is so alien to everybody here. Is it because you all think I'm writing that to say they're right? Well, I can put that fear to rest: No, I'm not saying they're right. I'm merely explaining why somebody would prioritize sexual conduct on TV over violence. I'm sorry that these people are living in a world of perception instead of a world of fact, but there's nothing I can do about it.

              Frankly, though, I think you all should be listening to what I'm saying, here. (in case it's a little fuzzy, I've brought this up before and it was mindlessly shot down there, too.) You guys want want these people to chill before resorting to extremism, right? How are you going to do that if you're going to call them 'fools' instead of trying to understand where they're coming from?

              Honestly, guys. I shouldn't have to put up my dukes every time I say something that's not quite in line with public opinion.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
                Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @03:36PM (#13189617) Homepage Journal
                  "If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it."

                  Alternatively, in my years in high school, there was never any death. There were PLENTY of pregancies, though.

                  Maybe we come from different places. I doubt that's the diff, though. Nearly every teenager pursues sex. Frankly, I think you need to take a good hard look at why you chose the phrase "less chance of having sex". That implies that your lack of sex (apologies, not intending to sound insulting. ) wasn't the result of a lack of trying or at least really really wanting. Would I be correct in assuming your parents didn't really care much for protecting you from 'sexual content'?
                  • I lost my virginity at 12 in a vacant house that was still being built with a girl that I had known for 3 hours. At age 16 I got my girlfriend (now wife) pregnant.

                    So I have something to say about this.

                    For starters, I understand where parents who are afraid of their children getting pregnant or impregnanting a girlfriend are comming from. As someone who has been down that road I am scared to death for the same thing happening to my daughters.

                    However, I put a large part of the blame on society shielding child

        • Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 8086ed ( 876715 )
          This is all fucking stupid. If I wanted to see naked people, I'd download some porn. I don't have the desire to watch pixels porking each other. It takes a lot more know-how to mod a game or install a patch than it does to get on Kazaa and download some hardcore stuff.

          If this kid would mod his PS2 to watch the Hot Coffee game, I'd say he already has a couple gigs of porn on his computer. Who's gonna get sued for that?

          I can't wait to get my Hot Coffee shirt [thinkgeek.com] tomorrow.

      • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:5, Insightful)

        by over_exposed ( 623791 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:07PM (#13187280) Homepage
        It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple. She purchased it for her 14-year-old grandson. Plain. And. Simple. It's not the fault of Rockstar, Wal-Mart, the ESRB, Toys-R-Us, Hillary Clinton, the game modders, the mod-chip manufacturer, the kid down the street that installed the mod-chip or any other scapegoat she can think of. The only problem here is that Grandma is contributing to the deliquency of a minor, she or her grandson broke the DMCA by installing the mod chip, and the kid's parents still let him play at Grandma's house.

        Seriously...

        • It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple.

          Not that plain and not that simple. It's more than an "AGE" limit -- but a guide which summarizes content as explained here [esrb.org]

          To take full advantage of the ESRB rating system, it's important to check both the rating symbol (on the front of the game box) and the content descriptors (on the back of the game box).

          Its now my understand that the game DOES list "STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT". But perhaps the game should have

          • I hope they go to court - I want to read about the lawyers for Rockstar giggling while asking this woman questions.

            "Ma'am, did you purchase this game for your grandson?"

            "Ma'am, did the game packaging have an ESRB rating of M on it and did the back of the packaging say why it's rated M?"

            "Ma'am, did you even look at the box when you purchased it for your 14-year-old grandson?"
            • Yeah, according to the article, she bought the game for her grandson, gave it to him, and then found out it was rated M and had it taken awy from him. Since she obviously didn't look at the packaging in order to realise that it was rated M, then she wouldn't have looked at the packaging to see that it was rated AO. The only thing I can say is that if it had been rated AO, she wouldn't have been able to buy it at her local Wal-Mart.
            • "Ma'am, did you purchase this game for your grandson?"

              "Yes, I did."

              "Ma'am, did the game packaging have an ESRB rating of M on it and did the back of the packaging say why it's rated M?"

              "Yes, it did. My grandson is mature beyond his years, however, and I didn't think there was any content on the disc that was inappropriate for him."

              "Ma'am, did you even look at the box when you purchased it for your 14-year-old grandson?"

              "Certainly. And nowhere on the box does it state that the content on the disc includes

      • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew@nOSPAm.thekerrs.ca> on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:25PM (#13187502) Homepage

        Here's a post I made on K5 yesterday:

        So I had a look at ESRB's site. GTA: San Adreas was previously (I believe) rated M. By ESRB standards, that means that they suggest this content it fine for anyone 17 years or older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.. From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on. To me, this fits within sexual content. Of course, up here in Canada, I've seen worse things on TV during prime time, though we do tend to be a little more liberal with sex and language on TV then our neighbours to the south.

        Now, they've bumped up the rating to AO. Which is okay for people 18 and over. I guess in those 12 months we're able to prepare ourselves to see what wouldn't even be considered soft porn. ESRB describes AO as ...may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity. So, a game centering on criminal activites that involve assinations, killing police, mugging people, hookers, etc. with lots of violence, a complete disregard for what most of us consider moral behvior, is much worse for our kids when it involves dry humping.

        As other posters have mentioned, this is probably a marketing ploy by Rockstar. If this investigation happens, and they manage to prove that management knew about it, slap a fine on them and move on. Lets face it, if your kids are up watching any kind of cable TV when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. If they surf the net when you're not around, they've seen worse than this. Accoring to various sources, most kids are losing their virginty by 16. So, if you're worried that this game was rated 17+, realize that your child has probably done more sexually than this game shows, well before they're at an age where the ESRB thinks they're mature enough to see it.

        • From what I've heard, the "Hot Coffee" scene show no nudity. It does show a brief scene of "humping" but clothes are on.

          This reminds me of something I forgot to mention when I posted earlier.. So they're REMOVING this content which caused the community to demand an AO rating, THEN they're giving it an AO rating, and in the description on the back, they've added 'NUDITY' to their list of reasons for the rating... Well, I hope this means that they're not really removing the content, but actually ENABLING it.

    • Re:Wow, people are fools (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Reapy ( 688651 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:44PM (#13188454)
      I don't get it. I never will. It has nothing to do with rockstar and the game and everything to do with blowing an issue out of proportion and scapegoating rockstar.

      Will no one get it straight in their stupid heads that this is only accessable by moding the game? There is no button sequence to press to unlock it, there are no in game mechanics to access it. You have to go in and modify the data in the game to access it.

      This is the equivalent of downloading and playing modified level for half life that has porn on the wall.

      The argument that the content was on the disk is rediculous. Who cares if it was on the disk? If you wanted to find it by looking at the disk contents, the worst you probably find would be a streched out uv map of a nude skin.

      I just don't understand why millions of dollars need to be spent to discover that it's easier to cut content by removing access to it then destroying all the assets?

      Rockstar provided no way shape or form for a game user to access this content. The only way to do such is to modify the game. MODIFY THE GAME!! Modifying the code is the same as adding in the nudity. It is the same as taking parts of various assets and construcing "lewd" pictures with it.

      God damn, I hate people sometimes. I hate them so much. And this isn't even launching into the whole hypocritical outlook on violence vs sex in our rating schemes.
      • I would say "Finally!" if this was the first post I've seen with the right idea but (thankfully) its not. It is however the first post I've seen that makes the arugment completly. Who cares if the code was on the disc, as the game was sold, there was no way for the player to access those functions.

        Whether the changes made to "unlock" the mini-game was 1 bit or a whole script swap, ANY modification of the game code, whether in the engine, the scripts, or even in a saved game file constitutes a violation
    • Anyway is it not her fault for buying a 14 year old a game desgined for 17+.

      That's right! Parents should just trust the ESRB rating, with no thought of their child's individuality or maturity level, because all kids are exactly the same.

      Hey, maybe we can go right ahead and make it illegal to sell M-rated games to minors, since obviously no one under 17 can handle it.
    • I am really confused about this one, Grandma thinks killing is ok, but sex isn't, glad I am not part of that family.

      I think the motive for this is payola.
  • I'm hoping she dies before anything comes of this. People like this need to go away.

  • This line says it all. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:52AM (#13187054)

    From TFA
    Grandma bought the game for her grandson. Her 14-year old grandson.
    Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...

    • Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...

      A bunch of people are saying this. Are you STUPID? If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

      • Re:This line says it all. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:12PM (#13187342)

        If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?"

        While the case can be made that taking a child to a R-rated movie is indeed contributing to delinquency, I'm going to focus instead on the second part of your statement:
        Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

        Wrong. Unless Grandma sits next to the child during every second of gameplay, sharing in the experience with him, it is not even remotely the same circumstance. The situation would be closer to Grandma getting the kid inside a theater where an R-rated movie is playing, and then leaving him to his own devices.

        Next time, think through your analogy before you post, please.
      • If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.

        It's not the same. The parents supervise the child at the movies. I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

        • I doubt grandma watched the 14 year old play GTA. If she did.. she ruins her own case because she could've pulled the plug as soon as she found it offensive.

          For a 14 year old? hah, it shouldn't have made it past the intro in that case ;) Hell some of the game *I* was thinking "wow, that's f'd up." and I'm more than 'old enough' to play!

          People need to .. I dunno, take responsibility for their own actions, or read ratings labels, or parent their children or something.. but that's probably asking waaaaay to
    • Exactly. What part of 'Mature - not for sale to under 17s' did she not understand?

      Or maybe she just wasn't wearing her reading glasses at the time.
      • What part of 'Mature - not for sale to under 17s' did she not understand?

        Grandma bought it, and I'm assuming that she is not under 17. The real point should be: What the Hell was she doing buying a game that glorifies car theft, murder, and organized crime, for a 14 year old? This is a game that involves greasing police, mobsters, and by-standers, stealing cars, blowing things up, and just general anti-social behavior. But sex, something that even preachers do, is going too far? This lady is a moron.

  • The first of many (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shimdaddy ( 898354 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:52AM (#13187060) Homepage
    Let this be the first of many comments to say that this is officially retarded. To buy a game that is rated for someone older than your child and then sue because content that is not accessible without serious binary editing is found is ridiculous. If your 14 year old wants cartoon sex, grandma, he can search for Hentai on google and find images far more erotic than in GTA.

  • Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:54AM (#13187078) Journal
    So, Granny fails to notice the M(17+) rating. Ok, it's not very prominent or well know. Then she completly ignores the box art, which I guess she could have overlooked on account of the way a lot of art is done these days. Finally, she didn't pick up on the fact that the game is named after a rather major felony. How oblivious do you have to be to buy this game for a 14 year old kid? Not to mention that she has managed to completly miss all of the noise made about the last installment. I'm sorry but she, and all of her offspring need to be scraped out of the gene pool as too stupid to breed.
    Yes, she's an old granny, and may not get out much, but she has the ability to get a lawyer and sue, so please don't give me the "she's an old confused lady" bit. If she is able to track down a lawyer and start a lawsuit over this, she should have been capable of figuring out that this game may not have been appropriate for her grandson.

    • I agree with most of your post, but a couple minor points:

      How oblivious do you have to be to buy this game for a 14 year old kid?

      Not very, in this case. I can guarantee she had no idea what the game was like, and probably just wrote down what her Grandson told her. Then, she probably walked into the store and showed them the name of what she wanted. A 14 year old kid would know exactly what he wanted, and would probably have already played it at his friends house. She probably didn't do research int

      • I can guarantee she had no idea what the game was like, and probably just wrote down what her Grandson told her. Then, she probably walked into the store and showed them the name of what she wanted.

        This still requires a bit of a failure to pay attention. As grandma was writing down the name of the game, she has to ignore the fact that it's name is still the same as a major felony. And, she would have seen the box when she bought it. Maybe I'm expecting a little too much for her to pay attention to wha
    • Actually, as I'm certain that many 14 year old kids are smart enough to know the difference between "real" and "fake", and as I would probably know enough about a close relative to know whether they are one of the 14-year-old kids that can handle it, and as I know GTA can be extremely entertaining, I really might go and buy it for a 14-year-old family member.

      I would "ignore" the rating, the box art, and the idiots in Congress who want to tell me what I can and can't buy.

      So there :)
      • Actually, I do agree with you that there are many 14 year olds who could play this game, Hot Coffee mod and all, and not be adversly affected by it. And if the parents believe that their child is one of those, then they should be free to buy it for them.
        However, it would seem that this is not the belief of the parents and/or grandparent, so they should have done a better job of checking into what this kid was getting and playing.
        Either way, it's the fault of the grandparent, in this case, and not the gam

  • The solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:54AM (#13187086) Homepage Journal
    Just package the game in a set of styrofoam titties, or require that stores set up their displays, the customer has to reach through the vagina hole of a big latex pussy with a throbbing red clit to grab a box.

    That ought to make it clear to even the most shriveled up grandma that this game is not for children, and you're fucking responsible for what you buy, not anyone else.
  • this is just some old chick jumping a potential sue happy gravy train in hopes of leaving a nice inheritance for her family when she dies (hopefully before the lawsuit settles). She stated in her suit that her grandson was 14 years of age when she bought a MA 17+ game for him. Right there in the complaint she admits her stupidity and guilt.

  • Think of the children! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jon787 ( 512497 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:55AM (#13187098) Homepage Journal
    Imagine the outrage if she had purchased her son the August 2005 issue of National Geographic Magazine. There is a photo of a nude woman in it! [nationalgeographic.com] We must start checking IDs on magazine purchases and institute a rating system at once!
    • AHHH!!! NAKED PEOPLE!!!

      Won't SOMEBODY please think of the children?! Our kids might grow up and decide that they like to fuck, and upon doing so, they might continue the species onward! HEAVENS!

      The above is an attempt (albeit, a poor one) at satire. Please mod accordingly.
    • Hey now, National Geographics are the sole reason school libraries still exist. It's a sacred ceremony when the graduating 8th grader enlightens the 6th grader as to where the one really worn, National Geographic in the library is... hidden amongst all the unread and pristine issues.

  • "Whaaa, whaaa whaaa..." (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:57AM (#13187124)
    "I thought my little grandson would only be partaking in the wholesome activities of running over dogs, raping prostitutes, murdering police officers, and slinging crack cocaine to street whores. But instead his precious little mind has been corrupted by THE EVILS OF CONSENSUAL SEX!"

    Fuck you, grandma. You are, plain and simply, an idiot.

  • More interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SolarCanine ( 892620 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:00PM (#13187156) Journal
    ...will be:

    (a) will Rockstar report her to the local Dept of Social Services for providing the game to the 14 year old,

    (b) will Rockstar turn around, if this lawsuit actually proceeds, and sue the modders for violating EULAs, and

    (c) will Rockstar bite the bullet and start refusing to submit their games voluntarily to the ESRB for rating at all?

    As far as I'm concerned, the hype surrounding this, the Congressional involvement, and the lack of parental responsibility in the equation are far more criminal than anything that Rockstar has done.
  • Thats funny, I submitted the same story earlier today from CNN,here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/27/game. lawsuit.ap/index.html [cnn.com] Oh well... I guess we should just chalk this up to another Stella award nominee... harryk

  • Don't Cry For Me Argentina (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:10PM (#13187316) Homepage
    Rockstar really made their bed with this one, and now they are going to have to sleep in it. Originally I blew this off as a bunch of prudes getting steamed over some mods for a game, but now its been shown that this is a built in 'feature'. I'd like to defend Rockstar, but really cannot as it is affording them special treatment at the expense of other people.

    The video game industry & audience has been VERY good to Rockstar; they've enjoyed massive sales & popularity, and at this point 4 sequels to an originally top-down perspective game centered around driving, stealing, and violence. And, with greater popularity comes greater inspection of the product by those who do not like it and wish for it to be banned. Given that GTA is a homing-beacon target for 'family values' type groups, it seems utterly retarded to package a sex game into it without informing the game raters, and then act surprised when players uncover it, then lie about the nature of it, and *wham* you just gave those 'family values' groups all the ammo they need to actually ACT and not just TALK about regulating video games further. My feeling is summarized such that while I do not think Rockstar intentionally tried to screw us this way, they have inadvertantly abused their success in such a way that it will hurt everyone else a great deal more than it will hurt them due to an anti-sex backlash amongst lobbying groups. Remember, with great power comes great responsiblity; with great success built upon the fellow shoulders of your video game colleages, comes the responsibility to not do things that will make it harder for your colleages to do their jobs in their comparatively smaller successes.

    And for the record, the Hot Coffee 'game' is entertaining once for the gimmick & shock value, but otherwise is as interesting as Virtual Valerie and definitely not worth the price that Rockstar is going to pay in the end at the hands of moral crusaders.
    • Originally I blew this off as a bunch of prudes getting steamed over some mods for a game, but now its been shown that this is a built in 'feature'.

      Built in feature, if you mod your game, enter a cheat code and then spend a lot of time trying to unlock that particular scene.

      It was not intended to be in the final game, it was disabled and can only be enabled by modifying the game. How can you call this "built in" when you need to patch your game to activate it?
      • More importantly, what people are upset about is content that you'd still have to actively pursue in order to find. It's not like a very much more legitimate complaint about nine year olds doing a report on the White House and finding themselves innundated with the sort of graphic pornography. Granted, Whitehouse.com no longer exhibits this, but I can only imagine there's others involved.

        I digress. There's a difference between shielding children from a very devolved representation of sexuality and keeping i
    • Nonsense. There are numerous technical reasons for having contrary content included in the game that is not designed ever to be exposed to human eyes. For example, in the sims the models get naked, and are blurred - the blur code can be disabled. Alternately, a hypothetical game could actually model the characters as naked models and put clothes over them (similar to barbie dolls) for better cloth physics. I expect that will be happening in games in a few years. Likewise, if a scripted screen includes
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • She's culpable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:11PM (#13187321)
    I wrote about this on my blog [yahoo.com] yesterday. Here are the important bits

    She's suing not only for herself, but for "everyone else who purchased the game." Since I purchased it I am someone she thinks she is protecting. So let me talk to Ms. Florence Cohen of NY directly for a second...

    Hey, Flo, I don't need your protection. I can read the labels on the box just fine by myself.

    Yes, GTA:SA is a mature game. That's why it was sold with an ESRB rating of "M" (now "AO" for adults only). "M" games are sales limited to people who are seventeen years of age or older. Rockstar, Take Two, the reseller, and the clerk at the store did nothing wrong by selling Ms. Cohen GTA:SA. That is, unless she is only sixteen yet has managed to have two generations of Cohens come after her. Her mistake was her own. She gave an "M" title to a person under the age of seventeen. If the government wants laws to punish clerks who sell titles to people outside of the posted age ranges shouldn't there also be punishments for people who traffic these games to children? She, either intentionally or not, was corrupting her grandson by giving him a game that the game industry reviewed, rated, and clearly labeled as not suitable for him.

    Outside of Ms. Cohen no one is at fault here. The voluntary rating worked, the box was clearly labeled with the restriction, and the store didn't sell the game to anyone under the proper age.

    I'll close by suggesting a new title for the article, "Ignorant Grandmother who bought 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' without reading the label is suing the manufacturer instead of taking responsibility for her mistake".

    • That is, unless she is only sixteen yet has managed to have two generations of Cohens come after her.

      If that's the case, she shouldn't be worried about sex in a video game.

  • Again? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarkGriz ( 520778 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:12PM (#13187337)
    Again with the grandma, and the hot coffee, and the lawsuits....

    When will they learn to stay away from hot coffee.

  • Jay Leno (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:14PM (#13187365) Homepage
    Leno had a joke about this last night: "What the Hell was a grandma doing buying GTA for her kid anyway? Was the store out of beer and BB guns?"

    It's a valid point: GTA is saturated with violence of some of the most offensive kind, a little sex should be the least of a parent or grand parent's worries, right? It's OK to grease police and mobsters, steal cars and blow things up, pick up hookers, but sex, now that's going too far?

  • Family Services (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 ) <xptical@@@gmail...com> on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:15PM (#13187377)
    First off, Rockstar should report her and the children's parents to family services for neglect.

    Next, they should sue the kid and his parents. They could claim that he modified the ROT-26 protected binary and used the product in a manner not in accordance with the EULA.

    Sue the grandma also. She bought the game and then gave it to someone else. I'm pretty sure the EULA only gives the purchacer the right to use the product.

    They should probably sue Jack Thompson for public disclosure of a unaddressed security flaw. Jack should have sent a private memo to Rockstar and given them time to revove the flaw.

    Then they should sue Mattell. Your Rockstar should claim they bought a barbie doll and a ken doll for their kids. The kids were latter seen playing with the dolls having simulated sex.

    Then sue Lego. You can put thoes things into some funny positions making it look like simulated sex.

    Sue the Catholic church for including "Song of Solomon" in the Bible. Sue the Protestants while you are at it.

    They should Sue Bill Clinton for having simulated sex in the Oval Office.

    Sue Hillary for not divorcing her cheating, lying husband. Women putting up with that shit degrades the American Family. Damn her for not setting a better example for our young women.
  • Grandma's suit may let "hostile" lawyers get a look at RockStar's emails and other internal documents. Then the truth may come out as to whether the offensive content was there intentionally, waiting to be "discovered", or simply forgetten cruft that didn't make the final cut but did not get deleted due to "honest" oversights.

    All the knee-jerk reactions to the contrary this suit may be quite useful.
    • Definitely an intriguing idea especially in light of Rockstars sad behavior after this became public, in which they did everything but accept responsibility for including the material in question. That then gives moral crusaders some pretty convincing ammo to use against game developers & publishers. 'Hey look, they cant even take responsibility for including the content let alone properly policing it! We need more government oversight & regulations...' you know the drill. For Rockstars and indeed a
  • Considering an "M" rating is the equivalent to an "R" rating.. she's on crack.

    You do not take a 14 year old to an "R"-rated movie, then sue the filmmaker because some boobies flashed on the screen (while the protagonist is in between druggin', murderin', and all kinds of other wholesome activities).

    You can see more explicit sex on Skinimax and I'm pretty sure nobody has gone up in arms over the much-hated "time hack" (in which young rascals stay up past their bed tiem to see terrible softcore 'sex').

  • M (17+) and AO(18+) (Score:3, Informative)

    by conigs ( 866121 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @12:42PM (#13187711) Homepage
    Living in the US, I'm always amazed at ratings like this..... *Before I continue, yes I understand that basically the M rating is a suggestion while the AO rating is more of a rule not to sell to minors* We all know what the game involves... and apparently that's suitable if you're seventeen. But because there's a hidden minigame requiring a mod to unlock it that has explicit cartoon sex, it's no longer suitable for 17-year olds... not you have to wait a year before you understand that cartoon sex. I never quite understood that... just like I can walk into a car rental place at 24 and 11 months old and not be able to rent a car.... one month later, I'm considered old and wise enough to rent one. I know there has to be a limit at one point.... but not much happens between 17 and 18 (other than "officially" being considered an adult) that seems to warrant two different ratings. Incidentally, I'd also like to point out that NC17 rating for movies used to be X..... hmmm... so you can watch real people pretending to have sex on film at 17, but you're really not ready to watch polygons poorly representing people on your TV having sex... *didn't rtfa, hasn't played GTA (no interest), sick of the hype over this issue prevading over real issues in current events*
  • MAN! This whole fiasco is bouncing around the topics here more than a superball! Alright, let's get a few things straight:

    Let's set aside all concepts that this 85 year old lady is a shriveled old busy body who wants to feel important. That's Jack Thompson you guys are thinking about; wrong person! Let's try putting ourselves in her shoes for a second.

    You are the grandmother of a well rounded 14 year old son. He's getting angsty from puberty and general teenager stuff, but he ain't that bad a kid. His
    • Dude.. dude...

      Switch to decaf.

    • "MAN! This whole fiasco is bouncing around the topics here more than a superball! Alright, let's get a few things straight:"

      Okay...

      "You are the grandmother of a well rounded 14 year old son. He's getting angsty from puberty and general teenager stuff, but he ain't that bad a kid. His parents let him watch some R rated movies, and don't mind the music he listens to either. They are also pretty tolerant about the games he plays."

      You assume a lot.

      "So you know your grandson wants this game, and let's say that y

  • This may actually be a GOOD lawsuit... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:04PM (#13187994)
    1. Grandma buys adult game for minor
    2. Grandma sues industry
    3. Court throws case out
    4. Precedent is set and fewer people try to do the same

    Don't get me wrong ... I think the woman is a total bitch trying to cash in on something that had nothing to do with her ... but here's hoping all she ends up with are steep legal fees as she wastes the court's time, and steps closer and closer to her coffin

  • 15 Minutes of Infamy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:16PM (#13188115)
    This isn't about the video game. By now that should be obvious to most people.

    This is about some opportunitstic, sleazebag lawyer and an 85-year-old incompetent parental figure trying to make a quick buck, or get their 15 minutes of attention.

    The less we talk about this frivolous lawsuit and the losers involved, the better.

  • Disgusted (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tachikoma ( 878191 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:22PM (#13188193)
    Some people in this thread have the audacity to say that this is, in fact, grannies fault.
    Clearly this is Take-two's fault and Rockstars, they are to blame for this. This is not something some one is scapegoating, this is ligit and they will loose to grandma.

    Did you not read the article? Rock* was physically there, and they engaged in misleading and deceptive practices and coerced her into buying it. I believe she was actually held at knife point...
    They used imtimidation, they threatened her life!! Besides, game ratings are not to be taken serious....they're more like suggestions as opposed to restrictions of age.
    They really mean "hey, MAYBE you want to wait. ah screw it, BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME you'll win a car...

    where was I going with this...

    oh yeah its rockstars fault, not helpless granny. I've been saying this for so long, kids are innocent until corrupted by an EVIL corporation.
    like microsoft ;)

    I would like to take this time to announce my lawsuit against Rockstar (all the cool kids are suing them these days)
    (ahem) Rockstar engaged in misleading and deceptive practices that led me to buying a soda at lunch today. I have since spilled that soda on my pants, and it grieved me so. I once saw a character in GTA:SA drink a beverage, which led me to my soda-purchasing ways. Cleary they are to blame. I want $85 million for damages, $14 for fun, and $7 million in grievances. We can settle out of court for a free copy of GTA:SA and beer money. PC version.

    And I mean real beer money. No $12 for a 30 pack of 'stones. And certainly no fake money. oh yea cash for dry-cleaning.
  • Will the M (17+) rating of the game save Rockstar?

    Maybe not, but the name of the game - "Grand Theft Auto" - will save them. It's going to be hard to argue that the Hot Coffee scene harms her grandson more than grandly thieving autos does.

    Incidentally, I'd like to see the parents who cluelessly bought these for their kids get busted for giving porn to a minor.
  • ... accidently spill it in her lap?
  • In that case, I'm going to sue Disney because the copy of the Rescuers I bought has nudity in it! [snopes.com] and its rated G! I don't care if they recalled it when they found out, Rockstar recalled GTA:VC and they are getting sued!
  • ... but where can I find a copy of GTA:SA for sale now in Toronto, then?

    Since news of this story broke all copies have gone up the spout here in Canada.

  • Harmful influence on minors (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @06:36AM (#13193520) Homepage
    In related news her 14 year old grandson has been arrested for stealing cars, running over police, and beating hookers to death with Giant Purple Dildos.

    -

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close