This is definitely interesting and is also a historic moment -- no game for a console has ever had an AO rating on release. Rockstar may well have more potential for getting this game out there though with this rating. Super huge amounts of hype and all.
The rating just makes me want the game more.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Rockstar is probably going to appeal the shit out of it because it will be really difficult to find in retail if it's rated AO
If by difficult you mean impossible, then yeah. There's no way any major chains will sell it. It'd pretty much have to be online only. Which would make it horridly rare for no reason, like Electroplankton.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Falaanla Marr said this:
Now lets see how the Nintendo=kiddy system argument goes.
score one point for the kiddy system argument, apparently
edit: also the rating was not intentional and Rockstar isn't pleased with it Kegwen fucked around with this message on 06-20-2007 at 06:11 PM.
quote:
Currently it's SCE's policy not to allow the playback of AO rated content on our systems.
quote:
Verily, Blindy. doth proclaim:
So apparently the playstation 3 is also a kiddy system.
it's a dumb policy no matter what and for the record i don't really agree with the kiddy system argument even if the Wii isn't my thing
quote:
Skaw's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
What's Microsofts stance on it?
Free money, what's not to like?
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Robocop:
score one point for the kiddy system argument, apparentlyedit: also the rating was not intentional and Rockstar isn't pleased with it
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Greenlit said:
Free money, what's not to like?
Yeah, I was going to say that if they don't care about AO ratings, this would be another advantage over owning a PS3.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Skaw wrote:
What's Microsofts stance on it?
According to this article, Microsoft will not allow AO games to play on their console. link
quote:
Mr. Parcelan Model 2000 was programmed to say:
So...what, this game is just basically banned?
If it doesn't get put on PCs or get the rating appealed, then yes.
quote:
This one time, at Asha'man camp:
The way I've always seen it, AO was reserved for games with explicit sex, and M for the really violent ones. It's not like the 1 year difference means anything maturity-wise.
Well maybe the rating company thought the title was "Mancunt" and just finished their review there.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Asha'man had this to say about Pirotess:
The way I've always seen it, AO was reserved for games with explicit sex, and M for the really violent ones. It's not like the 1 year difference means anything maturity-wise.
Even less so between an R and NC-17 rating.
Rockstar was aware of the ESRB's rating tendencies; they were aware of the controversy their title was going to stir; they were aware of Nintendo and Sony's refusal to support AO titles; they have the option to publish on PC.
No sympathy for them.
And I'm with Maradon: Ultra-violence does not make a game "grown up."
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when LeMiere said:
Rockstar was aware of the ESRB's rating tendencies; they were aware of the controversy their title was going to stir; they were aware of Nintendo and Sony's refusal to support AO titles; they have the option to publish on PC.
No sympathy for them.
yeah they have the option to spend millions of dollars to rework all their textures and redo their engine to publish on PC and not be available in any major retailer
I'm pretty goddamn sure they weren't shooting for AO. Take Two is in way too much financial trouble right now to throw this much money away for cheap publicity. This is something they could afford to do after GTA4, not before
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
yeah they have the option to spend millions of dollars to rework all their textures and redo their engine to publish on PC and not be available in any major retailerI'm pretty goddamn sure they weren't shooting for AO. Take Two is in way too much financial trouble right now to throw this much money away for cheap publicity. This is something they could afford to do after GTA4, not before
But they were -aware- of the possibility. There's no way that they weren't. They could have initially played it safe and planned for the game to be digitally distributed, marketed virally online, and still hit their major player base. They took a gamble [with console release] that they were well aware of.
It is also not uncommon for games to be given an AO rating and then resubmitted for a lower rating.
The primary issue with this news is that the initial build's rating was published. Which is, to my understanding, confidentially sent to the developer.
quote:
A sleep deprived LeMiere stammered:
It is also not uncommon for games to be given an AO rating and then resubmitted for a lower rating.The primary issue with this news is that the initial build's rating was published. Which is, to my understanding, confidentially sent to the developer.
Was this leaked by T2/Rockstar or somebody else? If T2/Rockstar did it or at least orchestrated it then yes, it's a publicity stunt and the sympathy is gone. Hell, if they were doing this for publicity they might have sent an altered build to the ESRB initially and then leaked the results of the review of that build. At this point, though, who knows? Kegwen fucked around with this message on 06-23-2007 at 04:59 PM.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Kegwen was all like:
Was this leaked by T2/Rockstar or somebody else? If T2/Rockstar did it or at least orchestrated it then yes, it's a publicity stunt and the sympathy is gone. Hell, if they were doing this for publicity they might have sent an altered build to the ESRB initially and then leaked the results of the review of that build. At this point, though, who knows?
ESRB refused to release/confirm the rating until Rockstar publicly expressed their dissatisfaction with it.
Patricia Vance and Take Two's initial comments regarding the rating quoted on Kotaku. LeMiere fucked around with this message on 06-23-2007 at 05:23 PM.
Even if they didn't intend for it to be AO they're definitely using it well to publicize their game. Interesting
But hey, we'll see within the next couple months.
That's the part people should be offended about.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I don't see how Postal 2 can get a M rating and Manhunt 1 gets M, then suddenly Manhunt 2 is the first non-pornographic AO launch game in history. Sounds like ESRB dropped the ball when they got letters from soccer mom organizations. 
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I don't care a whit for Take 2 or their stupid games--the really disturbing thing is console manufacturers deciding what they will and will not allow consumers to play. What's next, DVD players that check the rating and won't play R-rated or NC-17-rated films?That's the part people should be offended about.
The games industry lives in a state of perpetual fear of unnecessary legislation that will take away their current self-regulated status. Some of the things they do as a result of this fear are pretty asinine, such as the issue we're seeing here.
quote:
Asha'man had this to say about Duck Tales:
Uh, what the fuck are you babbling about. No, seriously.
As it applies in the US, at least:
As you said, there is a lot of potential bad publicity to be had with releasing an AO game. By disallowing these games on their systems, console manufacturers can at least say "hey guys we're doing our part to protect YOUR KIDS" or whatever even though retailers wouldn't carry them anyway. If it could be said that Nintendo condones AO games, it wouldn't be hard for idiots that get news coverage to make the case to concerned yet uniformed parents that Nintendo condones CORRUPTING YOUR CHILDREN WITH ADULTS ONLY VIOLENCE. It works well enough already with M rated games that kids shouldn't be able to purchase anyhow, can you imagine how much worse it would be with the big scary AO rating?
If such a movement gains enough momentum it could potentially lead to legislation where the government sets up its own agency to rate and enforce the issued ratings of video games. Hollywood has mostly avoided this issue and games industry has taken some cues from their approach. If there's too much controversy and enough people complain we may end up losing the pretty good self-regulation setup we have now. There's a lot more to it than just the ESRB ratings, everyone is doing their part to avoid making so much of a stir that something big like that might occur
quote:
Asha'man had this to say about pies:
I guess public image matters more to some than freedom of speech.I don't see how Postal 2 can get a M rating and Manhunt 1 gets M, then suddenly Manhunt 2 is the first non-pornographic AO launch game in history. Sounds like ESRB dropped the ball when they got letters from soccer mom organizations.
quote:
Asha'man obviously shouldn't have said:
I guess public image matters more to some than freedom of speech.[/IMG]
Yeah, to the people who sell make millions off of us. AO games cant get on shelves and wont recoup production and advertising costs.
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Cuba:
The games industry lives in a state of perpetual fear of unnecessary legislation that will take away their current self-regulated status. Some of the things they do as a result of this fear are pretty asinine, such as the issue we're seeing here.
Nope. It's riskier to make an M game than to make an E. With an M game it has to be pretty much a hit, or have a really low development cost to break even. E games will sell enough to break even almost everytime, as long as it's either good or looks acceptable to parents. Ferret fucked around with this message on 06-24-2007 at 03:55 AM.
quote:
From the book of Ferret, chapter 3, verse 16:
Nope. It's riskier to make an M game than to make an E. With an M game it has to be pretty much a hit, or have a really low development cost to break even. E games will sell enough to break even almost everytime, as long as it's either good or looks acceptable to parents.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't see how this contradicts anything that I said
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Kegwen wrote:
I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't see how this contradicts anything that I said
There isn't a "perpetual fear of legislation" at all compared to any other industry. There's also no such thing as self regulating anyways compared to a normal business. The major companies have their set of standards games must comply to, or they won't accept them. It's as simple as that. Yes, some of these standards are designed to avoid lawsuits, but they're in place the same way that waivers are there for TV shows, to cover your company's ass.
This entire AO thing is just a preferential thing on the major companies' part. The risk of taking on an AO game and getting branded as a Pornographic console wouldn't be worth the sales of a single game, since that's what AO tends to equate in the normal consumer's mind.
And to everyone else calling "Freedom of speech?" Please. If this was a freedom of speech thing Rockstar would have submitted a PC version, where there isn't any standards. That way, when people protested, there couldn't have been any real way to complain against them except to boycotting it, which only equals more press for the game.
I'm definitely starting to agree with the sentiment that this whole rating leaking thing is a giant publicity stunt, though. As someone else said, games are probably often retooled after an initial rating. I can't recall seeing anything else like this before, and if Rockstar/Take Two were indeed the first to say something about it then yeah it's definitely just to increase public interest.
quote:
Verily, Kegwen doth proclaim:
Full-on government regulation of games would suck, but you're right in saying that this is mostly unrelated to that potential issue. The issue is definitely one of covering the company's ass and of keeping one's reputation relatively clean.I'm definitely starting to agree with the sentiment that this whole rating leaking thing is a giant publicity stunt, though. As someone else said, games are probably often retooled after an initial rating. I can't recall seeing anything else like this before, and if Rockstar/Take Two were indeed the first to say something about it then yeah it's definitely just to increase public interest.
It isn't even that hard to resubmit and get a different rating, except for the actual time to alter the game. The ESRB doesn't even play the games, unless it's to clarify a part of the form the company has to fill out. I believe that the cost to get a game rated by the ESRB isn't really that expensive, compared to the dev costs to the game.
And yes the full-on regulation would suck, but it won't happen. It would be far too much of a hassle on the government's part to be cost effective, especially with the amount of protesting that would erupt aimed at whoever made the decision.
