Well, I'll certainly agree with you that the only reason that Rockstar did this was to stir up controversy. But I stand by my statement that there are tools on place to assist parents in blocking mature content from their kids, and that it's the parents responsibility to make sure that they're not accessing this content against their wishes.Alone Disciple said:Okay, for technicality sake I guess you can argue (rightly so) that there are 'safe guards' in place. But that's a technicality. In 'reality' and in day-to-day 'practice' I dare say most parents don't even have a clue on how to turn on parental controls, let alone find it on the Xbox and again maybe knowing it even exists.Yog Sothoth said:Your assertion that there isn't any protection or guards in place to prevent minors from obtaining this content is false. The 360 has parental controls that prevent users who are minors from downloading and playing M rated games and content. I see posts on the official Xbox forums daily asking how to bypass these locks. The answer is always the same: You can't. Your only recourse is to actually wait until you're 18. That's it.Alone Disciple said:While I enjoy Rockstar games and will still most likely buy the DLC anyway and beleive in free speech and all that....I just have to ask: "Why Rockstar? Why?"
What relevant point are they trying to make that the game can't be enjoyed by having said pixelated congressman be wearing a towel?
Yes, yes...I get the idea that it's rated 'M', and all the arguments about parents being tuned into what their kids are buying, but the fact being that 'M' titles bought in stores can at least be monitored by astute employees. With DLC, this falls way...way short. Any kid who has a MS points card (not M when purchased) can get the appropriate amount of points and download the game with no checks in place. Anyone with a balance of MS points can download, with no age check in place.
I can understand the 'hidden hot-coffee' code by an over-zealous programmer showing off and giggling behind closed doors, but this is purposely blatant and serves no gaming purpose or game function other than to stir up controversy. You can't tell me or convince me the story would be ruined one iota if the penis was covered by a towel for the few seconds on screen (especially a cut scene). This is sheerly for press coverage only.
I hate to say it, but I have no qualms about those that bring lawsuits against them in this instance. You can't tell me in all their testing, dev talks, layouts, programming, story writing, that no one at Rockstar may have raised an eye-brow at this. They pushed it through anyway.
Maybe a hefty lawsuit in which they lose may send a message to other developers. Should there be an 'X' rating beyond 'M'? And how do you control this in the DLC arena with point cards that are indiscriminate on how they are used.
Stupid. Stuoid. Stupid.
If you're a parent and you're not using these tools, then you fail as a parent or guardian, simple as that. If you're not closely monitoring your children's media consumption, again you fail. It is not the responsibility of developers to ensure that your kids aren't being exposed to adult content. A child can just as easily order adult movies though pay-per-view service if it's not password protected and monitored.
This is a simple First Amendment rights issue, and should be clear cut. Take responsibility for your kids and their media consumption. Don't try to pass the buck, it's a cop out and it's irresponsible.
The answer is not litigation. The answer is personal responsibility.
EDIT: And what the hell are you doing if you're letting your kid play GTA IV in the first place? If that's going on, then you've already lost the battle....
EDIT 2: And yes, there is already a rating above M, it's Adults Only or "AO" but almost no retailers will carry a game if it has this rating.
I'd wager it's common sense taht if asked most parents would indeed say "Yeah, I think my 'kids' machine probably has parental controls, but do they use it? Most TV's and cable boxes have a V-chip also installed, but I garner the vast majority of people don't mess with their TV settings to make sure their kid isn't watching Nip/Tuck or something else.
I absolutely agree with you 100% that is is personal responsibility, but unless you are living in an alternate earth, you know darn well most are clueless.
I also beleive in the first amendment, but I also can recognize when companies are pushing the envelope further and further for no particular gain other than to be controversial. As many people have already pointed out, "Why do we need a penis in a cutscene?"
Yes, I know it's a crime sim. I play it myself. I know it's a M title, and I play it along with other M titles as well, but Rockstar in this instant is being gratuitious for controverys sake only. This isn't a game enhancement. This isn't a story enhancement. This isn't a dirty easter egg or mod.
The fact being that my son or daughter buys a MS card and if I didn't set the parental controls, they can easily download it....no questions asked. Yes, there are employee's at GameStop or other stores that should monitor,.....some do, some don't, but at least there is a minor catch here in hoping an employee is following through. In the DLC world, it's free reign.
Am I saying Rockstar should stop making games? Nope, not at all. Maybe they should opt for an 'X' rating instead of 'M'. Maybe MS should more safe guards in place on Marketplace to make sure age is verifiable (not sure how you do it)....or maybe you just cover the wang with at towel. Somehow I doubt this is a pivitol moment in the game, so it's content is questionable other than for peer shock vale and to get us talking. Bad press indeed makes for good press afterall...marketing 101.
I also don't think litigation is the answer either, we are too much a litigious society as it is. In this case, I make a personal exception, they knew well ahead of time this may cause a little 'ire' amongst people, and given the cahnce they could have taken the conservative route, but they chose not to. But if someone (as wrong as you and I both may think it is) won a sizeable judgement, enough where it actually made developers re-think some of their decisions lest it cost them, wacky publicity stunts like this would go away.
And in the end, good game or not, free speech or not....this is just a 'controversial' stunt for 'stunt' sake.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Game developers and console manufactures have done most everything in their power to give parents the tools they need to protect their kids from adult content. The ball is now in the parents' court, and if they can't do their part I have no sympathy for them. If we adopt the mentality that only game makers are responsible for protecting our kids, where will that lead us? I have a pretty good idea, and it's not somewhere that I want to go....