Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-05-04 10:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:bethesda, esrb, hot coffee, modders, oblivion, ratings, take-two

Bethesda Responds to Oblivion Rating Change

Whatever you think of the Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion ratings mess, give Bethesda Softworks points for standing tall.

In a press release posted on Bethesda's website, the Oblivion developer admits that it - and not co-publisher Take-Two Interactive - handled the ESRB rating application process. Take-Two, of course, took a major hit over last year's Hot Coffee scandal, and their involvement - however peripheral - with Oblivion has already caught the attention of some game industry critics.

Bethesda reports that it will "will promptly implement the ratings change that the ESRB has ordered for Oblivion."

The company does not plan a product recall or a change in Oblivion to meet T (teen) rating standards. Nor will Bethesda contest the ESRB's decision. The company will work with Take-Two (whose name is, curiously enough, completely absent from the press release, which refers to it only as "co-publisher") to re-sticker existing inventory. New copies will be printed with the M (mature) rating ordered by the ESRB.

As far as it role, Bethesda said it made what it believes was a "full, accurate, and comprehensive submission on Oblivion to the ESRB months before the game's release. Bethesda used the ESRB's application forms and believes it adhered closely to their requirements. Nothing was hidden from the ratings agency. No effort was made by Bethesda to lobby or influence the agency for any particular rating."

Bethesda goes on to say, "There is no nudity in Oblivion without a third party modification. In the PC version of the game only... some modders have used a third party tool to hack into and modify an art archive file to make it possible to create a mesh for a partially nude (topless) female that they add into the game. Bethesda didn't create a game with nudity and does not intend that nudity appear in Oblivion. There is no nude female character in a section of the game that can be 'unlocked.'"

The Oblivion ratings issue does not bode well for the mod community, as witnessed by Bethesda's comment that, "Bethesda can not control tampering with Oblivion by third parties. Bethesda is taking steps to ensure that modders can not continue to hack into Oblivion's art archives to create partially nude figures."

Depite the problems presented by this rather messy episode, Bethesda reaffirms its support for the ESRB as well as for Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion.

GP: ...and well they should. It's a fantastic game. As far as their comments about the mod community, it's a concern, but who can blame Bethesda?

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




(Post a new comment)

Bethesda and Modding..
[info]thabor
2006-05-04 03:17 pm UTC (link)

Frankly I wish they had taken an even stronger stance on this. For many years they've been incredibly supportive of the modding community with their Elder Scrolls Construction Kit. Its gave Morrowind an incredible vitality and longevity and I expected Oblivion to be no different.

This is something I would really love to see the VGVN push as an issue. The mod community is vital both to video game culture and the video game industry. It unfortunate that a few immature members of that community would damage it with this kind of modification when it would be far easier for them to see pixelated TNA on any of the numerous free porn sites out there.

(Reply to this)

Actually...
[info]geedeck
2006-05-04 04:16 pm UTC (link)
This sets off a huge, huge fucking alarm with me.

Bethesda is going to protect content.

So... Who the hell are they, to tell me what to do with the property I have purchased from them. If I buy a car from Ford and want to drive it off a cliff, assuming I'm breaking no laws, what right does anyone have to disallow me that? None, because it's my freaking property.

How will the enforce this? Starforce? Something else? Oh no, I see better (ie worse). Our friend, the DMCA. It will be illegal to alter this thing you own.

It's criminal. It's a criminal theft of our rights.

The rest of the world has to realize that you can't control the actions of every person on the planet. A much more nuanced perspective, would be to sell the game as Teen, with a note that aftermarket modification can change this. Just like every online game says, because you never know when Tommy13old is going to cuss up a storm on live. Essentially, you cannot pretend to have control over what someone does with a product.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Actually...
[info]xlorep_darkhelm
2006-05-04 06:10 pm UTC (link)
The problem with this logic is that you technically do not "own" the game. You have bought a license to use it according to how the developer intends. Hense the existance of End User License Agreements. You get to legally use the game as long as you adhere to the EULA. If memory serves, violation of said EULA for virtually all software with an EULA means you have voided your license, and technically now have an illegal copy of the software. Thus is one of the inherent flaws in the whole commercial/propriatary software market. The consumer does not have many "rights" with regards to the software they purchase -- the consumer only has the privaleges that the software developer has prescribed. This is what makes copying software illegal, this is what makes reverse-engineering the software illegal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Actually...
[info]finaleve
2006-05-05 12:57 am UTC (link)
Techincally he is right. If I go out and purchase a soda, drink it, and all of a sudden Coke comes at me wanting their product back...yeah, im not. We have purchased these games for our property, and we aren't renting the games. When GTA was recalled, did we have to return them? Nope...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Actually...
[info]xlorep_darkhelm
2006-05-05 04:00 am UTC (link)
True, but you don't have an End User License Agreement with your coke. It's all in the litigation and legal documentation. When you purchase (most) software, you are merely purchasing a license to use the software, according to the rules that the seller has dictated. The difference is like buying a car, vs. leasing a car. The former one, you own, the latter you are merely using according to the dealership's terms. Check game manuals, boxes, etc. Somewhere there is a License agreement.

With GTA's recall -- the license agreement did not dictate that you had to return your copy of the game. It does say that you cannot make copies of the software and give them out to friends.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]imdwalrus
2006-05-04 04:18 pm UTC (link)
So...as shown twice now, the ESRB can demand changes to a game's content or ratings because someone modded the game?

I fail to see how that's fair or, for that matter, logical. The ESRB is rating the finished product, not what people do to it after publication, no?

How long before an AO-rated "The Movies?"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Developers just need to anticipate what modders will do...
[info]monkeyincorner
2006-05-04 04:50 pm UTC (link)
See, ESRB is saying developers are not responsbile for the content they create but for whatever modders can possibly create in the future...It's fair, isn't it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nightwng2000
2006-05-04 04:53 pm UTC (link)
I actually think it depends on the game.
From the way things read, Bethesda coulda lived with an M rating from the beginning had Oblivion been rated such. They were probably expecting such. Heck, they may have actually wanted it and were probably disappointed that they didn't get it at first. It's only speculation. But, since they were so willing to take the change without fuss, I can only see 2 reasons:
They wanted the M rating from the beginning.
They didn't want the negative publicity of fighting the rating change.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]pixelante_ninja
2006-05-04 08:37 pm UTC (link)
In the gamespot article they said they standed by the original rating, but they would respect the new one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

rating
[info]billboy2000
2006-05-05 12:20 pm UTC (link)
They stand by the original rating because they followed the ESRB's procedure to the hilt. It's the principle. They followed their rules and they simply want to stand by that.

Obviously an M rating for Oblivion will not noticebly alter the success of the game, if at all. I wouldn't say that they were gunning for an M rating, but I'm sure they felt there was a good chance it would have been rated mature in the first place.

Their reaction to this was far more effective and appropriate than the ESRB.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bethesda needs to fight back
[info]monkeyincorner
2006-05-04 04:57 pm UTC (link)
ESRB just can't get away with this kind of crap, just because they're trying to show they have influence over developers and publishers, they don't need to make someone a scapegoat. Bethesda needs to stand up and refuse to re-label the game, take ESRB to court if needed. They followed ESRB guidelines when they submitted their application. ESRB can't yank people around like this to gain some brownie political points!

(Reply to this)


[info]gargos
2006-05-04 05:14 pm UTC (link)
I think the ESRB needs to address this mod issue within their own departments. You can't keep faulting game developers for something a 3rd party does. If that were the case, why doesn't The Sims 2 have an M rating by now because of all the nude hacks out there and readily available? The game needs to be fairly rated based off what is accessible in-game without 3rd party mods and/or hacks, and that's it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]velkrin
2006-05-04 08:27 pm UTC (link)
Not only do they need to adjust for third party mods, but they need to anticipate the mods as well. Naturally every game will need to be adults only. I mean sure, there's no adult content in Myst, but what if someone comes along and makes a mod that puts it in? We have to protect the children from third party porn, if we don't, the terrorists win.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

???
[info]billboy2000
2006-05-05 04:51 pm UTC (link)
What does this have to do with terrorists? Please don't inflate this anymore than it already has been.

It's unrealistic and downright foolish to try and anticipate how others will attempt to modify a software program. The developer, the ESRB, the distributor or anyone else involved with the creation and marketing of the game cannot and should not be held liable or have to prepare for how the rest of the world may tamper with the software.
Their responsibility is to make sure that the product offered for sale meets outlined criteria. Whatever the consumer does with the product after that is beyond their control, or concern for that matter - and rightfully so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ???
[info]velkrin
2006-05-05 09:18 pm UTC (link)
I know sarcasm doesn't trasmit well over the internet, but I thought the Myst part would have made it obvious that I wasn't serious.

As for the terrorists part, that was making fun of politicians tendency to use the current 'hot topic' (drugs, terrorism, "family values", bunnies) to get a bill passed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ???
[info]billboy2000
2006-05-06 02:20 pm UTC (link)
Sorry, I'm not a Mist fan. I wouldn't get the reference.
But now I see your sarcasm, good one. Sorry for jumping on you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

It's not that bad...
[info]elliottback
2006-05-04 08:29 pm UTC (link)
The artists, as you can see here, just started with a nude skin. I don't see the harm in it...

(Reply to this)

Disturbing precedent against the modding community?
[info]shoubushi
2006-05-04 10:41 pm UTC (link)
I fear that, with these 'taken steps', it may well be that in the future, out of fear of creating litigation, upsetting Congress/the Legislature, or giving the Thompson's more ammunition, that game creators will no longer create true 'virtual sandbox' games. I do hope that I am wrong, otherwise, every PC game may well be forced to be M (or even AO), or locked to all but the best hackers.

(Reply to this)


[info]finaleve
2006-05-05 01:04 am UTC (link)
Okay, good effort from Bethesda. Good effort. Not a lot, but I can say it's a better step.

Thing is, ESRB should take into consideration what Mods can do, but there is no real telling on what they can. I mean, mods have been around for years. There was a mod in the Sim's for the nude skin, but there was nothing wrong with that because the models were crap anyway.

Here's some ammo "body armor" for the ammo people with this subject along with the Hot Coffee mod.
You buy some hamburgers raw from the food store. Now obviously the food isn't going to go well with your stomach, because its not good to eat things raw, so you cook it. You have now "modded" the burger to your liking.
That is pretty much what mods do. Mod things to their liking.

(Reply to this)

It occurs to me...
[info]kharne83
2006-05-05 01:59 am UTC (link)
...Why doesn't the ESRB do for mods what it does for online play?

"Game experence may change with the use of mods and/or other user-made content" Ta-da! Problem solved.

Honestly, you don't need anything more complex than that. It'll stop any more hot coffee problems from arising, and will equally treat all user-made content in one swift stroke. two birds, one stone, what more can you ask for?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It occurs to me...
[info]finaleve
2006-05-05 04:51 am UTC (link)
Dear god, thats an idea that could make political heads explode, then implode.

Something to really put use of anyways...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Let me get this straight
[info]eternallegenduk
2006-05-05 06:27 am UTC (link)
There are topless graphics in the game that aren't applied to any models, so you can't see them at all during play. These graphics were presumably part of the artists' set from which they worked on the clothed versions.

Three things come to mind:

1) You cannot see the breasts without manually downloading and applying a funbags mod. You have to manually introduce the ability to see them. The "risk" is that your child might find the hack and apply it himself.

2) You can kill people in this game, right? By re-rating it, they're suggesting that the ability to kill a woman is less morally repugnant than the ability to see her dirtypillows.

3) For crying out loud, it's some polygonal breasts with a pinkish texture applied to them!

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…