Xlrq (pronounced “Jeff“) recently lost his father-in-law in a terrible accident.
As part of his comments about his father-in-law, Paul McDonald, he links this story from Mr. McDonald. It’s definitely worth a read.
My sympathies and prayers go to Xlrq and his family.
Apparently, a grandmother is suing Rockstar Games after she bought GTA:SA for her 14-year-old grandson. Apparently she’s very offended that he might have seen nudity in the game, if he downloaded a mod that violated the EULA.
Let’s ignore the fact that she’s apparently much more upset about nudity that the kid can’t access legally than she is that the game she purchased involves lots and lots of criminal activity, ranging from mass murder to picking up prostitutes. A little bit of simulated sex is just a drop in the bucket when compared to all of the other Mature (thus, the “M” rating) stuff that’s in the game. Sure, it’s like buying La Blue Girl for your grandkid and then complaining that you didn’t know there was going to be cursing in it, but if she thinks a little nudity is worse than a lot of violence and mature themes, that’s her decision to make.
The problem is, though, that the material was, technically, in the game, but it was dead code — it can’t be accessed by winning a certain mission or entering a code, you have to modify the code in violation of the EULA contract. How, exactly, does she plan to present this? “I’m suing Rockstar Games because because they misrepresented the game they sold me. They told me that it only had ‘Realistic Violence, Mature Content, Gore, and Adult Language’, when it actually had animated nudity that would be accessible if my grandson did something completely innocent like, oh, break the law.”
The worst part of the recent GTA isn’t how it’ll affect the industry, really. It’s going to have a chilling effect on the Modding community, though, because most people don’t understand how these things work. I’d imagine, if the industry doesn’t start taking action against mods (which typically violate EULAs, but are ignored by the industry), that we’ll soon see lawsuits against mods that skin various games to allow characters to play nude. Because the industry really can’t monitor every single mod, they will start acting against modders en masse.
I’ll be watching this one nervously.
(Incidentally, in looking for information on this lawsuit, I ran across the Video Game Law Blog, which is now on my blogroll.)
I mentioned before the woman who used sperm she obtained through oral sex to impregnate herself and then sued for child support. Now, there’s a case from a fertility clinic at NYU that is almost as bizarre:
This is a question for men tonight: what happens to sperm in a bank when you stop paying to keep it frozen? Can your estranged wife pick up the freezing bills and use your sperm, then come after you for child support payments? That is at the center of this lawsuit against a sperm bank, a wife and a notary public.
This couple is currently getting divorced but before the relationship hit the rocks they were trying to have kids. According to court documents, Mr. Deon Francois’ sperm was frozen at NYU. Then the break up happened – about two-and-a-half years ago. Mrs. Francois continued to pay $500 a year to keep the sperm frozen and underwent in vitro.
Mr. Francois says he didn’t know about any of this, in fact, he didn’t know that she was still trying to get pregnant. He thought that if nobody was paying to freeze the sperm, it would be thrown away and it was a non-issue.
…
Now the embryo is an 8-month old baby boy and a judge says Mr. Francois owes $150 a week in child support. What about a legal release to use the frozen sperm? She says he signed one, he says it’s a fake.
Now, I think that Mr. Francois was being an idiot when he assumed that the sperm would be thrown away. He should have called the bank to confirm that, or, better yet, gone in to check. Still, this is clearly outside of the original intent of laws on child support, and the fact that the judge went along with it is yet another obvious reason why a dedication to following the original intent of the law is the only valid litmus test for any judicial candidate.
( þ Neal Boortz )
Part of the fallout from the Rockstar/Grand Theft Auto mess (mentioned here and here) can already be seen as the ESRB is now finding itself in the hot seat:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) — Shooting. Killing. Vehicular mayhem. Sexual conquests. Teenagers can experience it all through today’s almost-anything-goes breed of video games, primarily among those rated “M” for mature.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is responsible for that rating system, and this self-regulating video game industry group has suddenly found itself on the hot seat.
Critics say the board’s guidance is toothless and does little to help parents trying to protect impressionable children from questionable content.
Let’s review, shall we? The game in question was rated M. The logo that indicates that rating is pretty clear. It has a large “M” on it, and above that, says “Mature 17+”. Criticisms that the ESRB needs to take more steps to ensure that they see all of the gameplay elements are based in reality (though how they could be expected to see items like those in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which were apparently taken out of the gameplay but left hidden in the software, I have no idea) are fine, but this game was rated “M”, which doesn’t stand for “Much fun for kids.”
“I think it is very important for people to realize that this game is rated “M” for mature,” Vance said. “This game is not a game that was rated for children. Regardless of what if anything was modified, it’s a game that the ESRB has made as clear as it can that it was not intended for anyone under the age of 17.”
That’s what I just said. Now, take a look at this:
Further complicating matters, games’ final ratings can sometimes be of little use to parents and gamers deciding on a purchase.
For example, THQ Inc. offers two versions of “The Incredibles” for PC — one rated “E” and the other “T” for teen — each described simply as containing “cartoon violence.” And “Chris Moneymaker’s World Poker Championship” from Valu Soft is rated “M” for its “simulated gambling,” while Hoyle’s “Poker Series” gets an “E,” also for “simulated gambling.”
Different games get different ratings, and the explanations aren’t always clear as to why. That’s fine, and it’s a valid complaint. Does that stop the rating system from being effective in labelling games as “Mature”? I don’t see how it would.
But a good dose of government oversight is exactly what is needed, says Rep. Joe Baca, D-California. He has been trying for three years to get legislation passed that would require the FTC to determine if the video game industry’s labeling practices are unfair or deceptive.
Baca says parents are being misled — he thinks video game publishers seek the “M” rating even when they know a game includes content that should be in “Adults Only” territory.
“They know very well that if it said “Adults Only” these would not be displayed at a Target, at a Wal-Mart or any of the other video game (retailers), because they wouldn’t be sold,” Baca said in an interview.
“Government oversight” is a phrase that will almost always get my blood boiling, regardless of the context. Applying it to the video game industry as retaliation for the fact that they rated a game that obviously wasn’t for kids as inappropriate for kids is simply stupid.
Rockstar was dishonest. I don’t deny that. That doesn’t change the fact that the Video Game rating system is no harder to understand than the movie rating system. Any parent who claims that s/he bought a Mature game for their kid because they didn’t understand what the big “M” meant is being dishonest. They bought that game for their kid because either they thought the kid could handle it or because they didn’t care enough to do the hard, hard work of looking at the logo on the box!
The ESRB does fine work, and they don’t deserve the criticism they’re getting here.
I hate being proven wrong.
Rockstar Games, who I defended here, has admitted that the explicit sex in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was included in the game’s code. The “Hot Coffee” mod didn’t add something new, it merely unlocked stuff that was already hidden there.
The problem here isn’t so much that they included a sex scene in a game. Video gaming, despite the average non-gamer’s perception of it as such, is not primarily a pasttime for kids. Just like I don’t complain that there are films aimed at adults that contain nudity (or even that there are films that are primarily about the nudity/explicit situations), I don’t have a problem with the idea that a game has explicit scenes in it.
The problem is that they weren’t honest in marketing it, and by their dishonesty, they’ve put the entire industry at risk of government regulation. Worse, when they were confronted, Rockstar apparently felt that the best course of action was to lie about it, thus making the situation worse for themselves and turning some gamers against them.
When they were marketing GTA:SA, Rockstar had many options that weren’t dishonest:
By not taking any of these options, Rockstar has not just damaged themselves, but the gaming industry as a whole. “Leave the parenting to the parents” is a favorite bit of my political and societal philosophy. I’m constantly ranting that it is the parent’s responsibility to review any game or movie before purchasing it for their children, and I’ve praised the gaming industry for its initiative (admittedly driven purely by self-interest) in creating a ratings system.
If a game can be so wrongly rated not because of an oversight but because of an active attempt by game designers to hide content that would earn a higher rating, the government will be encouraged to step in, and government intervention is the last thing gamers as a whole should want.