Padma said:I saw another thread on this elsewhere. It linked to The Best Page in the Universe, with an article on this. My favorite line was
"I want to shoot people in the face, bang prostitutes, traffic drugs, steal cars, and terrorize police officers without this filthy smut in my game."
....sued the manufacturer Wednesday on behalf of consumers nationwide.
They've already lowered their profit expectation by $40m because of this incident, i say $40m and a big reputation hit (must stop playing Civ, its terminology is entering my normal life as well..) is bad enough. Its not as if we're talking about barbie goes shopping here, we're talking about a game that lets you kill civilians, policeman, steal and have your way with prostitutes (in fact all but the last are required to complete the game).Elrohir said:And will you be sharing any money won with consumers nationwide? I doubt it.
I agree, though, that they should have to pay for bad business practices. I don't think this women should get the money though, donating it to a charity would be a good use.
farting bob said:She let her 14 year old grandson play a 17+ rated game, then complains because it is made an 18+ game.
It's all Rockstar's fault. They unknowingly moved troops into the Soccer Mom's territory. When the soccer moms found out they declared war and Rockstar suffered a reputation hit.farting bob said:They've already lowered their profit expectation by $40m because of this incident, i say $40m and a big reputation hit (must stop playing Civ, its terminology is entering my normal life as well..) is bad enough.
Padma said:I saw another thread on this elsewhere. It linked to The Best Page in the Universe, with an article on this. My favorite line was
"I want to shoot people in the face, bang prostitutes, traffic drugs, steal cars, and terrorize police officers without this filthy smut in my game."
Not quite. Rockstar made it, but it takes an illegal mod to access it, and that mod it seems can only be found on sites that also advertise porn in some way.greenman1234 said:first of all it shouldnt be Rockstars fault. Modders made this not Rockstar.
stormbind said:Afaik, they are the ones who put the Sexually Explicit content into the game (as an easter egg) - meaning it was not a external modification.
Someone should be burned for willingly misleading the public.
MarineCorps said:http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/27/game.lawsuit.ap/index.html
And the lawsuits keep gettting dumber and dumber :twtich:
farting bob said:They've already lowered their profit expectation by $40m because of this incident, i say $40m and a big reputation hit (must stop playing Civ, its terminology is entering my normal life as well..) is bad enough. Its not as if we're talking about barbie goes shopping here, we're talking about a game that lets you kill civilians, policeman, steal and have your way with prostitutes (in fact all but the last are required to complete the game).
If i was a middle age, in-denial-about-what-your-kids-really-do, flag loving religious conservative that always gets in a twist about these sort of things being "immoral", i would be more concerned about the killing than the crappy sex bits.
I agree that this lawsuit is fairly stupid, but I disagree with your reasoning.Bozo Erectus said:Oh please, you can get porn in Google Image Search for chrissakes by changing the preferences in Advanced Search. A gorilla could find instant porn. If her 14 year old has a computer, chances are he's already seen more porn than she has in her entire life. If anything this dumb game would keep him busy and away from the hardcore stuff online
Sims2789 said:No they don't. Frivolous lawsuits are not a problem in this country. They are rarely filed and most of them don't even make it to court; they are almost always thrown out before then and then the person who filed the suit is fined. It's just that it seems like there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits because the media likes to cover them because they make them money. The politicians in turn capitalize off them and pass laws against them to make themselves look good. Remember the slew of laws that specifically outlawed people from suing fast food companies for making them fat just because one guy, yes one guy, sued McDonald's for being fat. Even worse is when the politicians that make it harder to sue insurance companies in the name of saving the courts from frivolous lawsuits, as the United States Congress did not too long ago.
ainwood said:I agree that this lawsuit is fairly stupid, but I disagree with your reasoning.
Ignore this specific woman for a moment. Some people closely supervise their children's internet habits. They install things like "net nanny", or even don't let children go on the internet unsupervised.
Some people may actually buy games without knowing the content.
Son: "Hey mum - can I get this great game?"
Mother: "What is it?"
Son: "Its a car-racing game."
Mother: "Hmm. Its rated "mature" - mild violence. I've seen other 'mature' games, andthey've been OK."
<later>
Son: "Hey mum, this game is broken. I need to download a patch - can I go on the internet?"
Mother: "will that fix it?"
Son: "Yes - games get patches all the time."
Mother. "OK".
Just because porn is on the internet doesn't provide any justification for game manufacturers to act in this way. I have no problem with them putting this kind of content in a game, but it should be recognised and reflected in the game ratings.
Children are obviously not completely honest with their parents, but the parents don't deserve to have things like this trying to circumvent their precautions.
The point I was making is that a child who wants to install this mod (without telling their parents what it actually is) might claim that it is a patch.MarineCorps said:Since when have mods become patches? It's like saying Rise and Rule is a Patch for C3C.