Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-08 11:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:ftc, hot coffee, lydia parnes, rockstar, take-two

FTC Rules on Hot Coffee

In a long-awaited ruling, the Federal Trade Commission has found that the companies behind Grand Theft Auto San Andreas engaged in deceptive marketing practices.

The FTC issued a press release this morning, wrapping up a 10-month investigation into the so-called "Hot Coffee" scandal.

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.

Under terms of a proposed consent decree, the FTC will require Take-Two and Rockstar going forward to clearly disclose all content relevant to a game's rating on its packaging. The companies must also set up a content review system to spare the gaming public additional servings of Hot Coffee. Finally, the companies agreed that they would be subject to fines of up to $11,000 per game sold if they commit such violations in the future.

Essentially, the FTC is saying, "Don't do it again."

Commission members accepted the proposed agreement by a 5-0 vote. The public may comment on the decision, which will be finalized in 30 days. The FTC investigation was requested last year by Congress as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Speaking of the investigation, Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said, "We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers. This is a matter of serious concern to the Commission, and if they violate this order, they can be heavily fined."

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




(52 comments) - (Post a new comment)

I agree
[info]johnhummel
2006-06-08 04:52 pm UTC (link)
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.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I agree
[info]nightwng2000
2006-06-08 05:06 pm UTC (link)
"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....

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I agree - [info]johnhummel, 2006-06-08 06:03 pm UTC
Re: I agree
[info]nitkin1
2006-06-08 08:02 pm UTC (link)
GARRY'S MOD!!!!!!!!!!!! nude skins, sexual positions. i think we need to go after valve!!!!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I agree
[info]philoetus
2006-06-08 08:04 pm UTC (link)
Most models aren't anatomically correct, however it has been shown that often times, when the male models that *can* show up topless and therefore are allowed to have nipples, modders just re-map this skin to the female model, does this apply as the developer producing the content?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I agree - [info]caelum, 2006-06-09 03:24 am UTC

[info]goodrobotus
2006-06-08 04:58 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dreamshade
2006-06-08 06:02 pm UTC (link)
"Essentially, the FTC is saying, "Don't do it again."

And that is a wonderful ruling. They are forcing Take Two to admit that they erred in the way they produced the material, but they are recognizing the specific circumstances behind the scenario as well as acknowledging that something like this has never happened before, seeing it from the POV of the creators to understand that the consequences of their actions were not fully understood, while sending a message to future creators to be a little more cautious with what they produce. This is really a fine ruling, and I congratulate the FTC for having a clear head on the matter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]philoetus, 2006-06-08 08:10 pm UTC
Agree, somewhat, but confused too.
[info]nightwng2000
2006-06-08 05:00 pm UTC (link)
"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."

This, naturally, will be taken out of context to, as usual, mislead and deceive the public as well as other politicians by dishonorable, unthical, individuals whose sole purpose... Pah! We know, we know.

The thing is, it wasn't meant as "UNLOCKABLE hidden" as part of the design, but rather "unnecessary code that remained and was made accessible by foreign components". Even the FTC admits it required external actions not available within the game itself to access such material. There is a difference, despite the lies and deceit of others... ahem. Moving on.

Still, if taken in appropriate context, the FTC wasn't passing judgement on the content itself, but rather the actions of Take-Two and Rockstar. Considering the lack of immediate admission when the issue surfaced in the first place, I think it's a fair slamming of their actions.

"Under terms of a proposed consent decree, the FTC will require Take-Two and Rockstar going forward to clearly disclose all content relevant to a game's rating on its packaging."
"relevant" That's the problem, isn't it? Hot Coffee material wasn't "relevant" until an outside force acted on it. :: shrugs :: Otherwise, it's already happening with being rated.

"The companies must also set up a content review system to spare the gaming public additional servings of Hot Coffee."
"Finally, the companies must establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive system reasonably designed to ensure that all content in an electronic game is considered and reviewed in preparing submissions to a rating authority."
Um, what? Do they mean they must internally reveiw content first, then send it to the ESRB or what?

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Agree, somewhat, but confused too.
[info]gray17
2006-06-09 01:48 am UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Agree, somewhat, but confused too. - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-06-09 07:54 am UTC

[info]ianc14
2006-06-08 05:21 pm UTC (link)
*awaits a certain person to spam game sites with press releases on this*

(Reply to this)


[info]scazza
2006-06-08 05:29 pm UTC (link)
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...

(Reply to this)

I don't think he has an outlet anymore
[info]skemodan
2006-06-08 05:52 pm UTC (link)
I think every single site in the world has banned him. He's nowhere to be found on Kotaku, 1up, here (obviously), GameSpot, or any other site I can think of. This is probably killing him that he can't spam us with his rhetoric.

JACK! I know you're reading this. Take a hint, you're a washed up old man with hardly a leg to stand on. Maybe you should use one of the millions of LJ accounts you have to start running your mouth about how gamers are akin to Hitler Youth and Dennis McCauly is a censor and all that other nonsense you keep attempting to pass off as fact. Then when we try and comment, you can censor us and still say you're a protector of free speech.

What ever happened to jackandgoliath.com by the way? Couldn't make up the info you needed for that either could you? What a shame, such a waste of flesh and bones you are.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I don't think he has an outlet anymore
[info]lost_watcher
2006-06-09 07:40 am UTC (link)
To post on Kotaku you have to be invited.
And I dont think he will be invited. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Zooming out onto the slippery slope
[info]verbinator
2006-06-08 05:56 pm UTC (link)
Does anyone hear the whistling descent of the other shoe falling? Anyone want to take wagers on which congressperson (probably running for office this year) takes this ruling and tries to make it a law (state or federal)? How long before EVERYONE's packaging has to contain detailed lists of whatever it was that triggered a particular rating ruling?

Instead of selling the features of our games on limited package surface area, we'll be using package space to describe the "bad stuff" in our games.

Or maybe I'm just being reactionary.


Thanks Take Two. Thanks Rockstar.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope
[info]gatz111085
2006-06-08 06:22 pm UTC (link)
look on the bright side, they could always double as advertisments.

I mean who could resist not purchasing a copy of SA with large letters at a slant on the box:
"POLICE OFFICERS GETTING SHOT IN THE FACE!"
"INTENSE COCAIN DEALS!"
"ACTION BASED CAR STEALING AND RUNNING THE DRIVERS OVER!"


With screen shots I might add.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]turbinerocks, 2006-06-08 06:41 pm UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]jesdk, 2006-06-08 07:35 pm UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]elricbrother3, 2006-06-08 08:23 pm UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-08 08:56 pm UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]curiousthompson, 2006-06-09 02:20 am UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]father_time89, 2006-06-10 01:35 am UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope
[info]lotharhex
2006-06-08 08:41 pm UTC (link)
I think the issue here is that Rockstar deliberately lied about putting the content in in the first place. I think things would have been a lot easier if it admitted that it was put in there as a possible feature, but withdrawn due to whatever reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]verbinator, 2006-06-08 08:58 pm UTC
Re: Zooming out onto the slippery slope - [info]kharne83, 2006-06-09 11:55 am UTC
I mean yes, Take 2 deserves this!
[info]enmitywithin
2006-06-08 07:40 pm UTC (link)


how was it deceptive? it wasn't. I don't know how many times I say it, but IT DOESN'T COUNT AS CONTENT IF YOU NEED A THIRD PARTY MOD TO UNLOCK IT, not to mention, THE FUCKING GAME IS RATED MATURE TO BEGIN WITH.

oh, and one more thing, If games can be rerated based on mods, I'm going to make boob and sex and rape mods for every educational game in existence, just to make them realize how damned stupid this is.

Now of course take two and Rockstar were both idiotic for lying about it and the entire controversy, but for the FTC to "make the companies set a system up to stop future hot coffee" is way too vague, and way to damaging.

I'm not here to protect the game companies. I'm here to protect the games.


This entire thing is bullshit because you can't access the hot coffee content playing the game EVEN WITH THE FUCKING STRATEGY GUIDE. THE OFFICIAL FUCKING STRATEGY GUIDE AT THAT.


I'm sorry for the bad language, this just pisses me off

(Reply to this)


[info]jargon_john
2006-06-08 07:50 pm UTC (link)
*insert badly animated lame ass sex scene here*

(Reply to this)


[info]jyoudan_sensei
2006-06-08 08:17 pm UTC (link)
Just a comment. The wording of the press release doesn't specifically say per game sold. It says per violation. Has this been clarified as being per game sold for sure? If so, the results can be staggering for a popular game, but otherwise, it is a mere slap on the wrist.

(Reply to this)

What about DVD content
[info]philoetus
2006-06-08 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Why do movie companies get a pass here, if we're gonna rate things that have nothing to do with games, we should force extra content in DVDs to be rated as well, I mean it's actually accessable through normal means unlike hacked content.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: What about DVD content
[info]phoenixzero
2006-06-08 09:22 pm UTC (link)
Too bad no one cares about movies anymore...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What about DVD content - [info]father_time89, 2006-06-10 01:37 am UTC
Agreed, but...
[info]thevelociraptor
2006-06-08 09:23 pm UTC (link)
FTC should know that this WAS a hack by someone poking around the GTA: SA files, but to me, I was wondering why the Hell Rockstar didn't take it out when they scrapped the feature.

Note: Do ESRB ratings apply to modifactions? Far as I know, this thing can only be accessed through a hack, or Gameshark/Cheat device. :-/

(Reply to this)


[info]rhanlav
2006-06-08 10:04 pm UTC (link)
The public may comment on the decision, which will be finalized in 30 days.

Shouldn't that read "Jack Thompson is allowed to bitch and moan about what an injustice of justice this is and how Take-Two is getting away with murder literally, at least for a month, anyways."

The man will be insufferable. Uh, err. More insufferable even.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-08 11:39 pm UTC (link)
actually, Miami Jack is loving this decision, e-mailing to everyone and his brother in an "I told you so" sort of way...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]beardoggx, 2006-06-09 02:22 am UTC
well then - [info]enmitywithin, 2006-06-09 02:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ianc14, 2006-06-09 09:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rhanlav, 2006-06-09 12:04 pm UTC

[info]butcher_bird
2006-06-08 10:38 pm UTC (link)
sounds to me that rockstars biggest sin is not being an oil company the ftc is just playing politics and trying to score some points after they gave big oil a pass last month

like george carlin once said "id rather my child see 2 people making love than 2 people killing each other" so why is consentual sex between adults worse than
stabing someone in the neck

this has nothing to do with justice
this is a violation of rockstars free speech
and worse this is a dangerous precedent which will keep video games shitty rockstar is the one of a fistfull of companys that makes good games for adults and its no surprise that governments (and other anti culture pedos) will do every thing in there power to take that away and prolly try and make us play stupid bible games and shit

PS screening comments sucks grow up and deal with your critic, this site feels cheap and dead without all the discussion, its like a freaken ghost town in here

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-08 10:49 pm UTC (link)
PS screening comments sucks grow up and deal with your critic, this site feels cheap and dead without all the discussion, its like a freaken ghost town in here

Yeah, I don't like it either, but our problem child was turning the comments area into a circus, and not a fun one.

We've also got very active discussion in the forums. Check 'em out...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nightwng2000, 2006-06-08 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thefremen, 2006-06-08 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]attackgypsy, 2006-06-08 11:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cactusjack1999, 2006-06-09 12:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]monte924, 2006-06-09 02:10 am UTC

[info]refraction
2006-06-08 11:12 pm UTC (link)
So, do Barbie dolls get a mature rating if someone goes along and gives them semi-accurate genatalia?

(Reply to this)


[info]elricbrother3
2006-06-09 12:23 am UTC (link)
Even though it was unlocked with a third party hack it was still coded on the CD. *Puts up flame shield*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kharne83
2006-06-09 12:13 pm UTC (link)
That's kind of the point isn't it? I mean, if rockstar didn't make it, if someone made hot coffe from the ground up as a fully external mod, we likely wouldn't be having this problem.

The scandel, as far as I can tell, is that R* denied that hot coffee existed despite the rather obvious evidence otherwise. The whole "MODS CHANGE RATING!!!!1!!!1111!!1!1" thing that came from it was just everyone getting bent out of shape. Making your own sex mini-game isn't going to change a game's rating.

As for legislation: I'm unsure, on one hand this keeps further hot-coffees under control as people know what to do off the bat rather than spend 10 months arguing over a damn hack. On the other hand, while it's R*s data, you still need a 3rd party hack to make it work.

As for ratings, I think people are getting a little paranoid here. M is M is M, dedicating half the box to explaining why M is M isn't going to change the fact that M is still, in the end, M. We're big boys and girls here, we know what we're buying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lampdevil, 2006-06-09 02:32 pm UTC
Paid Off
[info]majestic_12_x
2006-06-09 02:18 pm UTC (link)
They were paid off, it's a conspiracy.
'Nuff said.

(Reply to this)


(52 comments) - (Post a new comment)

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