Lawsuit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[X-EvansBasher-X]

Jeez, what are these scumball lawyers going to come up with next? (Read story @ linky)
Click here to remove the sex scenes from your version of GTA: San Andreas. ("The least downloaded patch in the history of the Internet")

[Skinner8]

Christ, that's stupid. People should be shot.

[Deach]

I'd rather just watch real porn.

[BiggySmall]

People are idiots for buying Mature games for kids and then blaming the game industry for there own mistake. Ur right dumba$$es should be shot

[FoReVerZeRo]

Why am I not fricken surprised? Dumbasses who turn to other things like video games when they don't want to put the blame where it should be: on themselves. Jesus, people are dumb.

[Skinner8]

People are idiots for buying Mature games for kids and then blaming the game industry for there own mistake. Ur right dumba$$es should be shot

I meant people in general, but that works too.

[ThugMaloy]

People will always try to blame everything but the person when it comes events they can't understand.

[((KvN))]

A patch to remove it? lol, unless you're a parent, then I can see, but otherwise, haha!

[Deezbeez]

People are idiots for buying Mature games for kids and then blaming the game industry for there own mistake. Ur right dumba$$es should be shot

I agree that Parents who buy Mature games for their kids and complain about the content are idiots but im very sure that the game never orginally had anything on the box about 'graphic sex scenes'. So how is it the parents mistake that Rockstar/Take-Two made this patch? Are you telling me that a parent should be watching everything their child downloads on their computer?

Besides why would Rockstar/Take-two make a patch like this? To attract kids, why else?

[Mistral]

A catch is that they didn't make the patch, but hackers cracked the executable and unlocked it. A better question would be why Rockstar/Take Two were stupid enough to leave it in.

I do think, though, that it is rather stupid to sue over this. You don't sue a restricted-rating movie if a child sneaks in and watches it, and all the more so if the parent pays for their child's ticket. Admittedly, the ESRB ratings are ignored a lot more by service industry and parents alike, but the organization itself isn't at fault for that - the parents and retailers are.

The thing intelligent people are upset about is that Rockstar basically circumvented the ESRB board by leaving the code in and never mentioning it. So, they gave it a lower rating than it would have merited (not that there's a difference between M 17+ and AO 18+ except in perception), and once the crackers online got their hands on it, it was released to the world...it's the idiots who believe it is their right to have the government (and TV, and video games...so on and so forth) do their parenting for them and then complain loudly when something invariably goes wrong that concern me more, though...

Even so...

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

[Mishotaki]

Details of complaint:
(briefly describe the damages you have suffered)

unable to get a hard-on because it wasn't explicit enough

lost 20 hours trying to get my girl naked.. and didn't even get a hard on after that!



well i didn't buy the game... and only played for like 20 mins... so it's not true... but someone should put that on their site for fun of harrasing them

[Drageuth]

Sexual content and nudity is not the same thing. Sexual content would be the allusion of sex, or sort of the silhoutte sort of thing. Nudity is the full-frontal stuff, and there is an ESRB rating for that:

AO (Adults Only): Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.


This was taken directly from ESRB's ratings. So, in effect, Rockstar/Take-Two failed to properly inform the gamers of what was in the game. Not something that's really worth suing about, but I could see where they would have a bit of a case. Not much, but a little bit.

Personally, I never enjoyed the games, although I don't like the concept of a videogame being bashed like that. But when you voluntarily put an ESRB rating on your game (and the ESRB is completely voluntary, companies just prefer to put them on) but you falsify the rating, with full knowledge that there is nudity in the game, then you are giving the false illusion that the game, while maybe for a slightly more mature audience, does not include scenes that you may find offensive.

Some people, for some preverse reason, violence is not as bad as sex and nudity. Although it may be the concept of the prostitute that's pissing people off...

[Cyberxion]

There was absolutely no nudity in the game. At all. The Hot Coffee mod displayed two fully clothed characters engaging in sexual acts. God of War featured full frontal nudity, which caught the game absolutely no shit from anyone. Shouldn't the jubblies have the politicians up in arms moreso than a poorly rendered sex scene between two fully clothed characters? I suppose not.

[kingoftheworld]

Those WACKY lawyers will sue even their own mothers just to make a quick buck. Ain't the legal system awesome?

[samarjit]

thoes people r really mad, they would just go to sue any body .... its up to the buyer what game he should buy & he shouldn't buy who r they to think that..
dont they have cases to fight .....