Sony, Nintendo (and Microsoft) forbid AO-rated Manhunt 2

[John]

Sony, Nintendo (and Microsoft) forbid AO-rated Manhunt 2 (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1)

When Take-Two Interactive yesterday confirmed that the Entertainment Software Rating Board handed down a rating of AO for Adults Only for Rockstar Games' Manhunt 2 on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, and Nintendo Wii, the publisher said it was exploring its options.

GameSpot has confirmed with Nintendo and Sony that one of those options, which would be to accept the ESRB's judgment and release the game with the AO rating, isn't an option at all. Both companies forbid licensed third-party publishers from releasing games rated AO for Adults Only on their various hardware platforms. Though Manhunt 2 isn't slated for any of Microsoft's systems, the company has also confirmed that it does not allow AO-rated titles on the Xbox or Xbox 360.

The sole exception to this rule was in 2005 when the already released Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was retroactively rated AO, at which point retailers pulled it from shelves and Take-Two suspended production of the game.

"It's currently our policy not to allow the playback of AO-rated content on our systems," a Sony spokesperson told GameSpot.

Nintendo's official line was much the same. "Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres, and ratings," a representative told GameSpot. "These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people. But as with books, television, and movies, different content is meant for different audiences. That's why the ESRB provides ratings to help consumers understand the content of a game before they purchase it. As stated on Nintendo.com, Nintendo does not allow any AO-rated content on its systems."

Take-Two's most readily available alternatives are to appeal the ESRB's AO rating or to modify the game. As of press time, a Rockstar Games representative had not responded to GameSpot's inquiry about how either move would impact the game's scheduled July 10 release date.

I haven't seen this posted anywhere on GP yet, so I figured I'd post it here.

Seems like neither of the big three are or would be willing to let an AO-rated game be released on the consoles.

Really, it's their consoles. They made it, they get to say what can and cannot be released on it.

But, really, do we need this type of game to be released now? Videogames are still coming underfire over a few games excessive use of violence and gore. How, I'm all for free speech and self-expression, and I'm no way going to pull a Jack and say it shouldn't be released.

But, really, at this point in time, all this game will do is add fuel to the anti-game politician's/group's/insane lawyer's fire.

Had a movie like Saw been released when movies were still fighting for their artistic freedom (Psycho, which was released in 1960, was the first movie to show a toilet, for movies were not allowed to show toilets beforehand), it probably would've done more damage to the movement then anything else.

What I'm asking is, is now a good time to release a game like Manhunt 2 (especially on the Wii) when videogame violence is still being hotley debated and laws are being passed against these types of games worldwide?

[kurisu7885]

All I can envision is a certain lawyer doing a victory dance around his desk, ten times. It makes bunnies cry.

[Pelor]

The systems have parental controls. It's pretty retarded to disallow adult content, especially considering that nintendo is trying to expand their market and Sony is trying to hook the hardcore gamer crowd.

Well, Thank goodness we still have PCs. I really would like a motion sensing peripheral for my computer though.


Edit: I also think the ESRB's decision to rate the game AO was correct. [/flamebait]

[bayushisan]

All things considered I think the ESRB was correct in its decision to rate Manhunt 2 AO. I also think that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all completely within their rights to put the kibosh on AO games for their respective systems.

I tend to agree with Pelor here. Rockstar and Take Two are doing this game purely for publicity, and that's not good for the community as a whole. I think its high time we took an honest look at what the industry is putting out in terms of content. Some of it is pretty rancid to be perfectlly honest.

I also think that its time we took a hard look at TT and R* and started asking them the tough questions. Things like what possesses them to try and make a game like Manhunt 2, knowing the controversy its going to cause and knowing that the gaming community is STILL coming under fire for things we had nothing to do with. I realize that, legally speaking, they have the right to create the game; however, as I've said many times before, just because you have the right to do a thing, in no way makes it the right thing to do.

[Hannah]

While I have no particular interest in playing Manhunt 2 (or Manhunt 1, for that matter), it saddens me that the AO rating can cripple or kill a game. A movie of equivalent or surpassing violence would still be sold in mainstream stores, but an AO game is universally banned. Even if they were to release it on the PC, what store would sell it? This has the unfortunate effect of limiting creative freedom. I don't like excessively violent games -- I'm very squeamish, so graphic violence bothers me -- but I strongly support Rockstar's right to both create such products and make them available to customers.

[Yukimura]

To be honest, I don't know if this will work out right or not, but I doubt it's smart to be self censoring. Someone like jack might see it as weakness and attack.

However, as regards manhunt, I personall can't support the game. Not due to content, but due ot the fact that, at best, the games look mediocore in my opinion and have little context beyond violence. I prefer a game that has some type of story behind it.

I hate games that focus soley on violence alone, it's why Manhunt never appealed to me.

Ironicly, a game Like Dynasty warriors, or it's over the top, insane japanse counter part, Sengoku basara, appeal to me cause while the involved tons of fighting, theres also a semblance of story to it and it has a certain level of truth, even if it is greatly exagerated

But manhnunt, it really was just a game about violence. Thats not what we need right now. What we need are MORE games like GOD OF WAR!!!

[Thefremen]

What we need are MORE games like GOD OF WAR!!!

I agree completely! God of War is extremely violent but in a classical setting, it's much less disturbing (just like how I can watch 300 but not Hostel) and actually is fitting.

[John]

All things considered I think the ESRB was correct in its decision to rate Manhunt 2 AO. I also think that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all completely within their rights to put the kibosh on AO games for their respective systems.

I tend to agree with Pelor here. Rockstar and Take Two are doing this game purely for publicity, and that's not good for the community as a whole. I think its high time we took an honest look at what the industry is putting out in terms of content. Some of it is pretty rancid to be perfectlly honest.

I also think that its time we took a hard look at TT and R* and started asking them the tough questions. Things like what possesses them to try and make a game like Manhunt 2, knowing the controversy its going to cause and knowing that the gaming community is STILL coming under fire for things we had nothing to do with. I realize that, legally speaking, they have the right to create the game; however, as I've said many times before, just because you have the right to do a thing, in no way makes it the right thing to do.

Exactly. I have no problem with games like Manhunt being released. They're no better then movies like Saw or Hostel. But at this time in the game industry, it's hurting us more then helping.

While I have no particular interest in playing Manhunt 2 (or Manhunt 1, for that matter), it saddens me that the AO rating can cripple or kill a game. A movie of equivalent or surpassing violence would still be sold in mainstream stores, but an AO game is universally banned. Even if they were to release it on the PC, what store would sell it? This has the unfortunate effect of limiting creative freedom. I don't like excessively violent games -- I'm very squeamish, so graphic violence bothers me -- but I strongly support Rockstar's right to both create such products and make them available to customers.

As do I. But the videogame industry is still a young one, which is coming underfire for it's sometimes excessive use of violence and gore. Movies can get away with it because they are older, and parents understand movie ratings. Whereas most parents today think that videogames are exclusively a childs toy, regardless if the average age of a gamer is 30 or so.

In 10 or 20 years it may not matter how violent a game is, because most gamers would have grown-up by then and become parents themselves (and thus more educated about videogames and their content), or hold political power, unlike the batch of politicians we have today who are so very clearly out-of-touch with the youth of today or any sort of mainstream culture.

[Shadow The Reaper]

You really think purposefully limiting ourselves will help? That's ridiculous. I can't support banning a game. At all. In a time where games are under fire for every little thing that happens, we can't back down from the scrutiny. As much as you want the industry to lighten up, it will only serve to show that the politicians are winning. We can't back down from anything. As violent as this game is, I support Rockstar every step of the way. ADULTS want to play this game. ADULTS should have that right. But I guess I am too hopeful. A mature rating apparently isn't enough to show that a game isn't meant for children. I guess I have too much faith in humanity. Color me disappointed. I guess proper parenting is just too hard for some people. I guess paying attention to what children play is just too much for any citizen to handle. I guess my government should dictate what parts of my hobby I can partake in.

[beemoh]

As do I. But the videogame industry is still a young one, which is coming underfire for it's sometimes excessive use of violence and gore. Movies can get away with it because they are older, and parents understand movie ratings. Whereas most parents today think that videogames are exclusively a childs toy, regardless if the average age of a gamer is 30 or so.

So we should just roll over and give up? To use the example upthread, the reason we can have toilets in films now isn't because films sat there biding their time until they thought it was acceptable to contain a toilet, we can have them because some forward-thinking pioneer stuck two fingers up at the establishment and just went and put a toilet in his film.

Videogames will always be "children's toys" unless the games industry starts to make games that do not fit into this mould, such as Manhunt 2, then stands by them.

[John]

You really think purposefully limiting ourselves will help? That's ridiculous. I can't support banning a game. At all. In a time where games are under fire for every little thing that happens, we can't back down from the scrutiny. As much as you want the industry to lighten up, it will only serve to show that the politicians are winning. We can't back down from anything. As violent as this game is, I support Rockstar every step of the way. ADULTS want to play this game. ADULTS should have that right. But I guess I am too hopeful. A mature rating apparently isn't enough to show that a game isn't meant for children. I guess I have too much faith in humanity. Color me disappointed. I guess proper parenting is just too hard for some people. I guess paying attention to what children play is just too much for any citizen to handle. I guess my government should dictate what parts of my hobby I can partake in.

Where did anyone say they support banning a game?

The big three banned the game from release for their console, which they are allowed to do, since it is THEIR console. They made it, the liscenced the games, and they can say whether or not the end product can be released for it.

Otherwise, no one here said that the game should be banned. It's just that releasing it at this time is not going to help us at all. It'll only serve to add fuel to our opponents fire.

[Brokenscope]

Behold the glorious beauty of the PC platform. Yes it has its costs, but don't all great things?

This is just further proof that one day the console will join the PC in the dustbin of electronic history.





Yes, and when the winds change a bit its going to be heading right for them.

[Garrett]

Videogames will always be "children's toys" unless the games industry starts to make games that do not fit into this mould, such as Manhunt 2, then stands by them.

That's right. But you can't stand by a product if you can't make money off of it. Part of me wants Rock* to just release the game on PC, with the AO rating. But since there aren't a lot of stores that will carry it (are there any?), online sales will make them slow moving money.

I keep thinking "A Clockwork Orange". Kubrick had to edit the film down 30 seconds to appease the MPAA. The movie was filled with rape scenes, was ultra-violent, and all done by teenagers. Now, you can get the entire film, unedited, on DVD.

[John]

Videogames will always be "children's toys" unless the games industry starts to make games that do not fit into this mould, such as Manhunt 2, then stands by them.

So, in order to make the gaming industry not look 'kiddie' we need this ultra-violent crap? There are pleanty of games out there that are adult-appealling and are not ultra-violent.

So we should just roll over and give up? To use the example upthread, the reason we can have toilets in films now isn't because films sat there biding their time until they thought it was acceptable to contain a toilet, we can have them because some forward-thinking pioneer stuck two fingers up at the establishment and just went and put a toilet in his film.

Yeah. He showed a clean toilet for a few seconds. He didn't have a ****-staind toilet overflowing with piss on-screen. He just had a toilet. It wasn't an over-glorification of something that was taboo or looked down upon during that time and for that type of media. Just like how when ultra-violent games are looked down upon, releasing an ultra-violent game isn't going to help our cause.

And please not, I am not saying this game should be banned or shouldn't be released, but, at this point in time, when we have organizations trying to stop pandering politicians and nutjob laywers from banning videogames, releasing this type of game is counterproductive.

[beemoh]

And please not, I am not saying this game should be banned or shouldn't be released, but, at this point in time, when we have organizations trying to stop pandering politicians and nutjob laywers from banning videogames, releasing this type of game is counterproductive.

So we should just roll over and give up? To use the example upthread, the reason we can have toilets in films now isn't because films sat there biding their time until they thought it was acceptable to contain a toilet, we can have them because some forward-thinking pioneer stuck two fingers up at the establishment and just went and put a toilet in his film.

But, in an attempt to promote slightly less circular discussion, and/or appease the forum software which doesn't count quotes in your ten-characters-or-more, when is a non-counter productive time? I don't know if you've noticed, but these pandering politicians and nutjob lawyers don't seem to stop- and they certainly won't consider stopping for as long as they keep getting results, such as, hypothetically, games companies shying away from certain content.

These people often use the 'Slippery Slope' as justification for their actions- that if they let us get away with this, then it'll just let us get away with that, which is supposedly worse. While this may be true, it works both ways- if we let them get away with taking away Manhunt 2, then it's only a matter of time before we lose Grand Theft Auto as well. And then Halo. And so on, until we're only- to paraphrase Zippy in the FCC threads, and draw quite a handy paralell with another media- allowed to play Pop Idol.

[bayushisan]

But, in an attempt to promote slightly less circular discussion, and/or appease the forum software which doesn't count quotes in your ten-characters-or-more, when is a non-counter productive time? I don't know if you've noticed, but these pandering politicians and nutjob lawyers don't seem to stop- and they certainly won't consider stopping for as long as they keep getting results, such as, hypothetically, games companies shying away from certain content.

These people often use the 'Slippery Slope' as justification for their actions- that if they let us get away with this, then it'll just let us get away with that, which is supposedly worse. While this may be true, it works both ways- if we let them get away with taking away Manhunt 2, then it's only a matter of time before we lose Grand Theft Auto as well. And then Halo. And so on, until we're only- to paraphrase Zippy in the FCC threads, and draw quite a handy paralell with another media- allowed to play Pop Idol.

You make a good point, however it should be noted that unless one of two things happens no consoles will be getting Manhunt 2. Either TT and R* reign in the violence and gore enough to get the game an M rating, or the big three will have to change their liscensing agreements. I honestly don't see the second happening given the current climate we're facing though.

[KN]

You make a good point, however it should be noted that unless one of two things happens no consoles will be getting Manhunt 2. Either TT and R* reign in the violence and gore enough to get the game an M rating, or the big three will have to change their liscensing agreements. I honestly don't see the second happening given the current climate we're facing though.

OOOOR

Rockstar does what Running With Scissors did and just distribute it online, giving them much unwarranted publicity and many, many sweet moneys.

[beemoh]

You make a good point, however it should be noted that unless one of two things happens no consoles will be getting Manhunt 2. Either TT and R* reign in the violence and gore enough to get the game an M rating, or the big three will have to change their liscensing agreements. I honestly don't see the second happening given the current climate we're facing though.

Which, of course, would be another result for the anti-gamers, bringing us back to square one.

[kurisu7885]

Which, of course, would be another result for the anti-gamers, bringing us back to square one.
Nothing the industry does will ever satisfy the anti gamers, so in reality it doesn't matter.

I'll take Vaz as an example. sony has been trying, rationally, to resolve the manchester church incident, what happens? They get spat in the face many a time and Vaz weasels in after the Manhunt 2 ban and goes "While we're at it, let's ban this too."

Take away one thing, they'll find something else. give them this,they'll keep trying to take more and more.

[tempo]

Where did anyone say they support banning a game?

The big three banned the game from release for their console, which they are allowed to do, since it is THEIR console. They made it, the liscenced the games, and they can say whether or not the end product can be released for it.

Otherwise, no one here said that the game should be banned. It's just that releasing it at this time is not going to help us at all. It'll only serve to add fuel to our opponents fire.

They may have designed and manufactured the consoles, but they do not own them, the consumer does.

I have these pieces of paper here that indicate the transfer of ownership from a retailer to myself based on the exchange of money for my consoles.
I own them, they are my consoles, and they have been installed in my private home.

Does anyone really think its ok for a corporation or the oligopoly of 'The big Three' to dictate what it is we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes with our own property?

When a government does this, its called facism, and I would call it the same thing if any kind of organization, corporate entity or other, attempted to force their principals on me. Especially in the privacy of my own home.

These kind of restrictions on our private lives (and private media) are flat out wrong, and not at all in line with the values of a free society.

Not all that long ago there was a saying 'The customer is always right', more recently its 'Let the invisible hand of the market decide' (which is a variation on the customer is always right), now its what? 'The corporations decide, the consumer does not question'?

There is not a single other household appliance i can think of, in which the manufacturers of said device, restrict the use of it in the privacy of a consumers home.

[bayushisan]

I'll grant you that, on some levels, the consumers do own the consoles that they buy; however, the consoles' copyright is owned by their creator/manufacturerer, thus why liscensing agreements are needed. A coporation has every right to refuse to liscense a game for their systems since they own the copyright. I see no problem with the way the system workds in this regard.

[ZippyDSMlee]

I thought MS was better than that they could be the sega of the new age and have real adult class level violence of the time on their system.
================================================== ===

Looks like Take-Two invited the mainstream media over to play Manhunt 2 the other day, because not only did Newsweek and MTV check it out, but so did the New York Times. The NYT essentially walked away saying that games like Manhunt 2 have a long way to go before they reach the gore found in modern "torture porn." Seth Schiesel writes, "Banning the original version of Manhunt 2 may be a good way to demonstrate that the industry can police itself. Side by side, though, movies seem to be way ahead of games in delivering top-notch gore."

Schiesel tests this by renting the R rated version of Saw II, where the "first scene was of a young man in a bleak cell being taunted to find a key by digging into his own oozing eye socket. If he does not yank out the key in 60 seconds, his head will be crushed in a spiked metal 'death mask' around his neck." Scheisel points out that the game probably got the rating because all the ESRB sees is a highlight reel of the game, they don't actually play it. He says it'll be "fairly simple" to re-edit the game for an M rating in time for the holiday season. And the New York Times isn't above going with the general conspiracy theory floating around about Manhunt 2, saying, "Whenever it does ship, Manhunt 2 is likely to enjoy a level of public awareness (and potentially sales) that it could never have attained without the ban. That of course may well have been what its makers intended all along."



http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/26/ny-times-r-rated-movies-gorier-than-ao-manhunt/

[beemoh]

There is not a single other household appliance i can think of, in which the manufacturers of said device, restrict the use of it in the privacy of a consumers home.

^this.

Even the over-DRMed music players let you play MP3s.

[bayushisan]

However MP3s are, for the most part, not liscensed by the manufacturerer; games, on the other hand, ARE a liscensed product and must abide by the contractual obligations set in place by the manufacturerer.

[ZippyDSMlee]

^this.

Even the over-DRMed music players let you play MP3s.

Game systems are not universal game players, they are the exception,however looking at the Saga/nin 16bit days MS is a position to pawn them on this AO front if they would only take the jump.

[beemoh]

However MP3s are, for the most part, not liscensed by the manufacturerer; games, on the other hand, ARE a liscensed product and must abide by the contractual obligations set in place by the manufacturerer.

I'm not sure I see your point, apart from describing the (present) differences between a portable music player and a console- other than market forces, what is there to stop a major DRM vendor and PMP manufacturer (IE: MS or Apple) disallowing the playback of non-DRMed music, and then not "granting" DRM to any music that would get a Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics sticker? And what makes that any less "right" than what MS, Sony and Nintendo are doing with AO games?

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'm not sure I see your point, apart from describing the (present) differences between a portable music player and a console- other than market forces, what is there to stop a major DRM vendor and PMP manufacturer (IE: MS or Apple) disallowing the playback of non-DRMed music, and then not "granting" DRM to any music that would get a Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics sticker? And what makes that any less "right" than what MS, Sony and Nintendo are doing with AO games?

Because of the IPs involved the consoles are unique compared to a universal player.

Unlike movies,music or anythign else video games are a high proprietary format that can make or break a system, since profits are made off game sales and games can sell a console theres much more red tape to get a game on a system than merely making a movie..

What you are saying is that they should be forced to take a game regardless of what it is and thats like saying a publisher should take and print any book its offered(ok not the same but about as ridiculous).

[bayushisan]

I'm not sure I see your point, apart from describing the (present) differences between a portable music player and a console- other than market forces, what is there to stop a major DRM vendor and PMP manufacturer (IE: MS or Apple) disallowing the playback of non-DRMed music, and then not "granting" DRM to any music that would get a Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics sticker? And what makes that any less "right" than what MS, Sony and Nintendo are doing with AO games?

My point is that the music is not a liscensed product. That's why even groups like the KKK can produce and distribute CDs outside the system. Its also why most record companies can get away with a simple parental advisrory sticker instead of an overall ratings system.

Video games, on consoles at least, must be liscensed by their respective manufactureres, in fact I think that's the only way that third party producers can get their hands on development consoles. By signing the liscensing aggreement they're giving corps like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft the final say in what does and does not get released for their individual systems. It really is a good system at its core and, at least in my opinion, should be supported by the community at large.

[ZippyDSMlee]

My point is that the music is not a liscensed product. That's why even groups like the KKK can produce and distribute CDs outside the system. Its also why most record companies can get away with a simple parental advisrory sticker instead of an overall ratings system.

Video games, on consoles at least, must be liscensed by their respective manufactureres, in fact I think that's the only way that third party producers can get their hands on development consoles. By signing the liscensing aggreement they're giving corps like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft the final say in what does and does not get released for their individual systems. It really is a good system at its core and, at least in my opinion, should be supported by the community at large.
=============================================
It also prevents games from begin ported,sony turned down Shadow Abyss 2 for the PS2(so says altus or whoever made the game),its really a odd proprietary system that puts the brand above everything else,this can stifle creativity by forcing limits on games pre and post deving,its better to let the market and parents to handle it than posing from the top down a hidden ban rule.

the system makers do not need to get involved in this retail will do thier dirty work for them....

[beemoh]

It really is a good system at its core

Why? What makes games need this system, and why wouldn't it benefit, say, music, to continue my DRM analogy?

[ZippyDSMlee]

Why? What makes games need this system, and why wouldn't it benefit, say, music, to continue my DRM analogy?

MMm that would suck if music separated into 3 groups around 3 sets of hardware and all music only played a bit on each,however games are different as in the proprietary setup they have because of the hardware its like mini os that require prior approval befor anythign can be sold on it,it sucks,its draconian but its how it is currently.

[tempo]

On all levels, the consumer owns the console s/he buys....

Being the copyright holder does not constitute ownership, but simply 'the right to make copies'

If someone owns a book for example, they can do anything they want with it, they can read it, they can burn it, they can use it for toilet paper, they can sell it on ebay. What they can't do is photocopy it and distribute it in any way. They can sell the original, but they can not sell a copy.

There is a very clear distinction between ownership and the right to copy.

It is a system of legal protection to protect the creator of the original material. It was put in place with the intent of preventing unauthorized reproduction (like, piracy).

Using copyright protections to enforce censorship, or to control the freedom of expression, is an abuse of the system.

There is proprietary software in consoles needed to run games that is under copyright protection. In general, this is basically what is being licensed. It is the business model they use to get a cut of the top of game sales, its where the money comes from. The console manufacturers do have the right to license this to anyone they want, or not to. Basing this solely on content, or a rating system designed to inform consumers is wrong.

Just because a corporation can do something, does not make it right. Using the legal protections of copyright law to push a subjective morality is wrong. I don't take my morality from unemployed lawyers, and certainly not from corporations.

Also, if anyone is missing the hidden message in all this, it boils down to the console manufacturers making a statement that 'video games are only for people under the age of 18', to put that another way, 'games are for kids'. Which is a statement that runs counter to pretty much the entire game industry, especially the ESRB, which specifically made a rating to classify games for adults or games not suitable for kids. (not to mention running counter to the values of almost everyone registered on this site)


Btw, the reproduction of any copyrighted music does require licensing....

[Tollwutig]

They may have designed and manufactured the consoles, but they do not own them, the consumer does.

I have these pieces of paper here that indicate the transfer of ownership from a retailer to myself based on the exchange of money for my consoles.
I own them, they are my consoles, and they have been installed in my private home.

Does anyone really think its ok for a corporation or the oligopoly of 'The big Three' to dictate what it is we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes with our own property?

When a government does this, its called facism, and I would call it the same thing if any kind of organization, corporate entity or other, attempted to force their principals on me. Especially in the privacy of my own home.

These kind of restrictions on our private lives (and private media) are flat out wrong, and not at all in line with the values of a free society.

Not all that long ago there was a saying 'The customer is always right', more recently its 'Let the invisible hand of the market decide' (which is a variation on the customer is always right), now its what? 'The corporations decide, the consumer does not question'?

There is not a single other household appliance i can think of, in which the manufacturers of said device, restrict the use of it in the privacy of a consumers home.

I'm not sure I see your point, apart from describing the (present) differences between a portable music player and a console- other than market forces, what is there to stop a major DRM vendor and PMP manufacturer (IE: MS or Apple) disallowing the playback of non-DRMed music, and then not "granting" DRM to any music that would get a Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics sticker? And what makes that any less "right" than what MS, Sony and Nintendo are doing with AO games?

On all levels, the consumer owns the console s/he buys....

Being the copyright holder does not constitute ownership, but simply 'the right to make copies'

If someone owns a book for example, they can do anything they want with it, they can read it, they can burn it, they can use it for toilet paper, they can sell it on ebay. What they can't do is photocopy it and distribute it in any way. They can sell the original, but they can not sell a copy.

There is a very clear distinction between ownership and the right to copy.

It is a system of legal protection to protect the creator of the original material. It was put in place with the intent of preventing unauthorized reproduction (like, piracy).

Using copyright protections to enforce censorship, or to control the freedom of expression, is an abuse of the system.

There is proprietary software in consoles needed to run games that is under copyright protection. In general, this is basically what is being licensed. It is the business model they use to get a cut of the top of game sales, its where the money comes from. The console manufacturers do have the right to license this to anyone they want, or not to. Basing this solely on content, or a rating system designed to inform consumers is wrong.

Just because a corporation can do something, does not make it right. Using the legal protections of copyright law to push a subjective morality is wrong. I don't take my morality from unemployed lawyers, and certainly not from corporations.

Also, if anyone is missing the hidden message in all this, it boils down to the console manufacturers making a statement that 'video games are only for people under the age of 18', to put that another way, 'games are for kids'. Which is a statement that runs counter to pretty much the entire game industry, especially the ESRB, which specifically made a rating to classify games for adults or games not suitable for kids. (not to mention running counter to the values of almost everyone registered on this site)


Btw, the reproduction of any copyrighted music does require licensing....

You may own the console but you do not own the trademarked name, the trademarked logo, nor do you actually own the software that runs the console. You (particularly on the Wii) have to accept the Manufacturer's end user license agreement when you power up your system. If your read your manual you are informed that by powering on the system you accept the EULA. If you do not accept the EULA return your product. For your convenience here are the EULAs for the Wii & Playstation 3:
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEULA.jsp
http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS3/Warranties

You see unless the console manufacturer agrees the game developer can not, produce a game which a)uses the firmware on the console itself b) uses the consoles trademarked logo in sales or marketing c) uses the trademarked name for the console.

You see it isn't just about the console it's about the name of the console which is protected by copyright & trademark laws.

I'll add to this later. look for updates.

[tempo]

You may own the console but you do not own the trademarked name, the trademarked logo, nor do you actually own the software that runs the console. You (particularly on the Wii) have to accept the Manufacturer's end user license agreement when you power up your system. If your read your manual you are informed that by powering on the system you accept the EULA. If you do not accept the EULA return your product. For your convenience here are the EULAs for the Wii & Playstation 3:
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEULA.jsp
http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS3/Warranties

You see unless the console manufacturer agrees the game developer can not, produce a game which a)uses the firmware on the console itself b) uses the consoles trademarked logo in sales or marketing c) uses the trademarked name for the console.

You see it isn't just about the console it's about the name of the console which is protected by copyright & trademark laws.

I'll add to this later. look for updates.

Yes.
I've said all these things in my last post, thanks for reiterating, i guess..

What i also said, was that it does not make it right, and that it undermines the ESRB.
Using intellectual property laws to censor media, is an abuse of this system.

Just because someone can do something, does not make it right.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yes.
I've said all these things in my last post, thanks for reiterating, i guess..

What i also said, was that it does not make it right, and that it undermines the ESRB.
Using intellectual property laws to censor media, is an abuse of this system.

Just because someone can do something, does not make it right.

pretty much they are not helping the industry by laying on extra "protections".

[Tollwutig]

Yes.
I've said all these things in my last post, thanks for reiterating, i guess..

What i also said, was that it does not make it right, and that it undermines the ESRB.
Using intellectual property laws to censor media, is an abuse of this system.

Just because someone can do something, does not make it right.

That's just it they are not censoring the media. They are refusing to allow their logos, names or firmware to be associated with it. Rockstar is completely free to make Manhunt 2 as long as they don't use any of the three.

And if you don't like the EULA, do not power on your console and take it back to the store.

[ZippyDSMlee]

That's just it they are not censoring the media. They are refusing to allow their logos, names or firmware to be associated with it. Rockstar is completely free to make Manhunt 2 as long as they don't use any of the three.

And if you don't like the EULA, do not power on your console and take it back to the store.

blocking them from releasing it dose make them censors because they are blocking it on that ground.

spin it however you want its legal and almost ok censorship.

[Tollwutig]

blocking them from releasing it dose make them censors because they are blocking it on that ground.

spin it however you want its legal and almost ok censorship.

Thats just it they are not blocking it they are just saying not on our console. Rockstar is still completely free to release this on the PC, MAC, or even Linux if they want, or they could if they really feel this is about art and not profit, develop their own console.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Thats just it they are not blocking it they are just saying not on our console. Rockstar is still completely free to release this on the PC, MAC, or even Linux if they want, or they could if they really feel this is about art and not profit, develop their own console.

your being like me don't spin it please, they are BLOCKING IT BY SAYING NOT US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thus its a defacto ban ...

[beemoh]

You may own the console but you do not own the trademarked name, the trademarked logo, nor do you actually own the software that runs the console. You (particularly on the Wii) have to accept the Manufacturer's end user license agreement when you power up your system. If your read your manual you are informed that by powering on the system you accept the EULA. If you do not accept the EULA return your product. For your convenience here are the EULAs for the Wii & Playstation 3:
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEULA.jsp
http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS3/Warranties

You see unless the console manufacturer agrees the game developer can not, produce a game which a)uses the firmware on the console itself b) uses the consoles trademarked logo in sales or marketing c) uses the trademarked name for the console.

You see it isn't just about the console it's about the name of the console which is protected by copyright & trademark laws.

I'll add to this later. look for updates.

Okay, you've explained- again- how the licencing system works but not why it has to work this way, or why we should- broadly speaking- accept it.

[beemoh]

Btw, the reproduction of any copyrighted music does require licensing....

Yes, but not on the part of the manufacturer of the player. I know DRM isn't a perfect analogy here, but you can see the link I'm trying to make.

[Tollwutig]

Okay, you've explained- again- how the licencing system works but not why it has to work this way, or why we should- broadly speaking- accept it.

Well necessarily it doesn't have to work this way, but this is the way you accept every time you power on your console. If you do not agree with the licensing agreement don't buy the console in the first place.

Although it isn't likely to change because open source code, despite what so many Linux users yell, is not very profitable.

To develop a console means you must spend money to develop the hardware (or pay others to), and then combine that hardware with an Operating System which can be used to launch games. You are then going to be developing some form of tools for developers to write games in to make them work. These tools often require that some of your code end up on their disk. So you can either throw this code out to anyone, which leads everyone and their brother having the code or you can license the code.
Now if you open source the code, anybody can use it to develop a game but you do not have to take any responsibility on it's performance nor it content. The problem is you've opened up your code now every programmer and their brother is going to have the code that makes games on your system work. It will not be long before someone figures out how to make the game work on regular PC hardware, making your console obsolete. If they do not make the console itself obsolete they are going to figure out how to crack the games so that they can pirate them (I know it already happens but it would be much easier with Dev tools). This means publishers are not going to make a profit from games released on your console, and thus will stop developing games for your console. Your console becomes obsolete. Either way in the long run an open source console is eventually going to stop being profitable for both publishers and the manufacturer.

Thus you license your firmware, and the tools which are used to develop games on it. You also license the code which will go on to the game disk which you developed. Now since you are licensing the tools, the firmware, and the code; you are also going to be required to support it and brand it with your logos. Thus any game that comes out for your console you are going to have your reputation tied to. Thus you're going to want to insure that the content released is what you want representing your company. So you stick the clause in the license regarding this. In order to make sure you make a profit part of the license agreement for letting a developer use your tools, logos, & code is a slice of the profits from the game. You also put restrictions on their content since you are going to ultimately be represented by this product.



Yes, but not on the part of the manufacturer of the player. I know DRM isn't a perfect analogy here, but you can see the link I'm trying to make.


The thing is music isn't in a single medium. You don't see an Ipod only edition of the new Britany Spears album. If you did then Apple would have every right to have a say so in the content.
Music works in reverse because it has more outlets. First Record Labels decide what content they wish to be attached to their names. (If the content is something they don't want attached to their major brand they use one of their subsidiaries to produce the content.) Then the Record label promotes the music through radio & concerts. IF the artist is popular they will be carried by the likes of Wal-Mart & Best Buy, but they are free to once again say they don't want to carry such content. (Thus you have Wal-Mart cuts of some albums.)

If you had a music player that licensed a band to only produce music for their specific medium then yes the manufacturer would have some control over content.

As it is your counter example isn't accurate because the same exact control over content is occurring but at the publisher level. If a Music publisher decides that the content of the songs are not something they want attached to their label then their contracts are so stringent that they just bury the album, and say produce another one.

MP3 players and such don't have a say so in content because
1) MP3 is an open source format. DRM is the same except for Ipods.
2) The content has other formats to take advantage of (radio, concerts, CDs & Albums).
So making an MP3 player that doesn't support certain music would not make business sense because the MP3 format is readily available. IPod succeeded with it's unique DRM because it actually used Itunes & marketing combined with an easy method of downloading music.

The same goes for DVD. DVD is an open source format. If you made a DVD player which would not play R rated movies, then at best you'd sell in a niche market because the format is open sourced. A good example of this and how it fails badly is DIVX.

Because Movies & Music have other means of turning profit they can use open source. Due to the nature of video games you're stuck with a closed source code which ends with License agreements.


To end this Zippy you need to look up the definition of censorship.

[jojocotto]

Maybe DVD player manufacturers should create proprietary software and cut deals with content producers for exclusivity. Oh wait that's what sony is doing with its blu-ray player. Remember how well that worked with BETA-max (I don't either but its an infamous failure of proprietary media)? How about the mini-disc player?

For some reason videogame consoles have been able to thrive with this limitation on content. Perhaps the difference between content on any dvd player and a videogame has to do with how much more complex it is to develop a videogame as opposed to anyone picking up a camera, filming whatever disgusting (but legal) content, and publishing it for a universally recognized format (DVD). With the trend moving toward user created content these limitations may become obsolete. However I'm sure the game company's on-line services (proprietary internet?) could easily control and censor anything an editorial board finds objectionable.

While I detest the "torture porn" movies referred to, I simply refuse to watch them. If the free market supports them so be it. The same should be true for any other entertainment content.

Also God of War is a great game but it is hardly less violent than manhunt 1. Since you're butchering mythological creatures I suppose it is more palatable but the action is the same.

[ZippyDSMlee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds.

pwned maybe?

what they are doing is defacto censorship it would be clear if they did it on M games or anything above E10+.

You can not say its not censorship like at least, mainly because they are withholding a level of gaming from the public,what they are doing is not illegal or evil but it is not right either, so please tell me again this is not censorship from on high atop the game industry.....

[ZippyDSMlee]

Maybe DVD player manufacturers should create proprietary software and cut deals with content producers for exclusivity. Oh wait that's what sony is doing with its blu-ray player. Remember how well that worked with BETA-max (I don't either but its an infamous failure of proprietary media)? How about the mini-disc player?

For some reason videogame consoles have been able to thrive with this limitation on content. Perhaps the difference between content on any dvd player and a videogame has to do with how much more complex it is to develop a videogame as opposed to anyone picking up a camera, filming whatever disgusting (but legal) content, and publishing it for a universally recognized format (DVD). With the trend moving toward user created content these limitations may become obsolete. However I'm sure the game company's on-line services (proprietary internet?) could easily control and censor anything an editorial board finds objectionable.

While I detest the "torture porn" movies referred to, I simply refuse to watch them. If the free market supports them so be it. The same should be true for any other entertainment content.

Also God of War is a great game but it is hardly less violent than manhunt 1. Since you're butchering mythological creatures I suppose it is more palatable but the action is the same.

I know its stupid because you are rapeing apart the undead its all somehow "OK"...
Have you heard about BR+? the whole live key system is a ridiculous idea,once crackers get the keys and flood their system a lot of movies will become unplayable.

[tempo]

Yes, but not on the part of the manufacturer of the player. I know DRM isn't a perfect analogy here, but you can see the link I'm trying to make.



No, I get what you are saying, i was referring to some other poster saying you can't license music, but i think i may have misunderstood them anyway...

------

Concerning the question of whether this is censorship or not
They are restricting media based on the content of the media... that's what censorship is.

Its not like sony and nintendo were suddenly surprised the game contained graphic violence or w/e, they knew full well what this game was all about. They have probably seen more of this game than anyone and way before the ESRB ever got their hands on it.

What they are saying is they will not license content that is deemed inappropriate for anyone over the age of 17 by the ESRB, an institution set up by members of the game industry to inform the public about the content of games. The ESRB has done there job, and are probably correct about the game and informing the public that it is a game meant for adults.

The ESRB has an AO rating because they believe some games are meant for adults. They don't have an AO rating so it can be used to restrict and censor media, until it becomes acceptable for 17 year olds.

I totally think this policy is wrong and self-defeating for the industry as a whole. I think the console manufacturers need to revise this policy, get in line with the content makers, the ESRB, and gamers.

Having a rating meant to inform and having it become classification for de facto censorship is totally f'd, no? I mean if the ESRB could actually use this rating, and apply it to mainstream games, maybe there would be a lot less bitching about these 'violent children's games'.

[jojocotto]

Unfortunately rating games is looking more like film ratings. The NC-17 rating was supposed to allow creators freedom of content while protecting children who should in no way view such adult material. However distribution outlets such as theaters, blockbuster, and retail stores refuse to carry titles with such a rating. Companies circumvent this hurdle by releasing unrated versions which the stores carry because there is good money to be made. Games are held to a different standard unfairly.

By the way I love every year around the holiday season when there is a press conference in a room in the capital building attended by Joe Lieberman and assorted censorship groups where they show clips from the most debaucherous games out that year. There's nothing funnier than seeing those uptight prudes who want to ban the content, broadcast a montage of animated nudity, cursing and ultraviolence for anyone with cable tv to see. Its my favorite holiday tradition.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Unfortunately rating games is looking more like film ratings. The NC-17 rating was supposed to allow creators freedom of content while protecting children who should in no way view such adult material. However distribution outlets such as theaters, blockbuster, and retail stores refuse to carry titles with such a rating. Companies circumvent this hurdle by releasing unrated versions which the stores carry because there is good money to be made. Games are held to a different standard unfairly.

By the way I love every year around the holiday season when there is a press conference in a room in the capital building attended by Joe Lieberman and assorted censorship groups where they show clips from the most debaucherous games out that year. There's nothing funnier than seeing those uptight prudes who want to ban the content, broadcast a montage of animated nudity, cursing and ultraviolence for anyone with cable tv to see. Its my favorite holiday tradition.

NC17 was changed to unrated for home release,you'd be surprised at how many places have "unrated" DVDs.


If games can get that by release 1/4th of the pressings as "unrated" and be sold by retail thats willing to sale it I would be happy,sadly games do not have that ability yet, the ESRB is doing the best it can to keep everyone pleased while making everyone unsatisfied.

the ESRB would do well to push nin,sony and MS to let the gore based AO titles in that way devs can make and release the games unquestioned, from there retail will pick up the slack as they always do.

[Tollwutig]

Maybe DVD player manufacturers should create proprietary software and cut deals with content producers for exclusivity. Oh wait that's what sony is doing with its blu-ray player. Remember how well that worked with BETA-max (I don't either but its an infamous failure of proprietary media)? How about the mini-disc player?

Ahh the ye ole Blu-Ray argument. Just so you're correctly informed Blu-Ray is not a Sony proprietary format. There is a whole consortium who are behind it:


Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Zippy it helps to post the definition and skipping it to put your spin on things.
Neither Sony, Nintendo, nor Microsoft are with holding or removing Manhunt 2 the AO edition from the public. They are preventing it from being published on their consoles. Take-two is still totally free to give the material to the market in a PC format.
The fact is as long as Take-two has an available outlet to publish their material no censorship is taking place. Whine and cry about it all you wish but its the simple fact, Take-two does have an alternative, if they wish to publish the game as is.

I am not arguing that there is no unfair stigma being placed on AO games, only that it is the console manufacturer's right to control the content being published with their name attached. Hate it as much as you want, but it is their right to do so. If you do not like this, don't buy the console. If you really hate it try developing and marketing you're own "Adult" console.

[beemoh]

Well necessarily it doesn't have to work this way, but this is the way you accept every time you power on your console. If you do not agree with the licensing agreement don't buy the console in the first place.

Although it isn't likely to change because open source code, despite what so many Linux users yell, is not very profitable.

To develop a console means you must spend money to develop the hardware (or pay others to), and then combine that hardware with an Operating System which can be used to launch games. You are then going to be developing some form of tools for developers to write games in to make them work. These tools often require that some of your code end up on their disk. So you can either throw this code out to anyone, which leads everyone and their brother having the code or you can license the code.
Now if you open source the code, anybody can use it to develop a game but you do not have to take any responsibility on it's performance nor it content. The problem is you've opened up your code now every programmer and their brother is going to have the code that makes games on your system work. It will not be long before someone figures out how to make the game work on regular PC hardware, making your console obsolete. If they do not make the console itself obsolete they are going to figure out how to crack the games so that they can pirate them (I know it already happens but it would be much easier with Dev tools). This means publishers are not going to make a profit from games released on your console, and thus will stop developing games for your console. Your console becomes obsolete. Either way in the long run an open source console is eventually going to stop being profitable for both publishers and the manufacturer.

Thus you license your firmware, and the tools which are used to develop games on it. You also license the code which will go on to the game disk which you developed. Now since you are licensing the tools, the firmware, and the code; you are also going to be required to support it and brand it with your logos. Thus any game that comes out for your console you are going to have your reputation tied to. Thus you're going to want to insure that the content released is what you want representing your company. So you stick the clause in the license regarding this. In order to make sure you make a profit part of the license agreement for letting a developer use your tools, logos, & code is a slice of the profits from the game. You also put restrictions on their content since you are going to ultimately be represented by this product.

Right. Thank you.

Although: DVD isn't open-source, and that works fine, with manufacturers paying the DVD people to let them make a DVD-compatible device- on which we get functional NC-17 DVDs.

Anyway, next question: are the first parties right to do take that approach, and are they making the issue worse by vilifiying the AO rating?

[Tollwutig]

Right. Thank you.

Although: DVD isn't open-source, and that works fine, with manufacturers paying the DVD people to let them make a DVD-compatible device- on which we get functional NC-17 DVDs.

As DVD was developed and promoted by multiple corporations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#History) it is very close to open source. You have to license the use of the logo, but the specifications themselves are set by the DVD Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Forum) which is open to any company who helps develop the technology.

Anyway, next question: are the first parties right to do take that approach, and are they making the issue worse by vilifiying the AO rating?

Is it right for them to take the approach? That is hard to say, at this time I don't see how they could actually license an AO game on their console and not come under marketing pressure from NIMF, CFCC, PTC, and other such organizations.

Remember that the consoles themselves make very little money for the manufacturers. Sony even sells the PS3 at a loss ultimately. The money is made off of the Game licensing. If you know a Game is not going to sell all that well since: the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it; you are likely to get protests due to special interest groups; the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place, do you license the game or not?
Ultimately is it good business sense to allow your logo to be put on a product that is in all likelihood cause you problems and not likely to generate money?

Sad as it is video games still haven't really grown up. They are in their early teens where some adult like material is allowed but the grown ups are going to complain loudly and try to censure them.
Is it really a bad thing that Nintendo, Sony, & Microsoft are trying to be the responsible teens and telling Rockstar to get their act together so as not to cause anymore trouble?

The same thing has happened in the past. Look at horror movies. In their infancy we have the 1950's horror. Very little blood, the monsters weren't really scary. People didn't really complain. Then we had a little movie called Day of the Dead, it had some gore to it, and scared people. It was hailed as a landmark, one that horror movies stayed at for quite some time. Horror movies moved a little further in the 1970s with two films: Jaws & The Exorcist. These two films got horror to grow up a bit, now horror movies really were about scaring the audience, and grossing them out as well. These were pre-teen horror movies.
Fast forward to the 1980s and Horror movies hit their teens with Nightmare on Elmstreet & Friday the 13th. Now Horror movies are all grown up with Saw & Hostel It took decades for it to happen, but even though there was some outrage over Saw & Hostel in reality the public barely batted an eye.
Manhunt 2 is just too much too soon for it to sustain a profitable market.

[beemoh]

Remember that the consoles themselves make very little money for the manufacturers. Sony even sells the PS3 at a loss ultimately. The money is made off of the Game licensing. If you know a Game is not going to sell all that well since: the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it; you are likely to get protests due to special interest groups; the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place, do you license the game or not?
Ultimately is it good business sense to allow your logo to be put on a product that is in all likelihood cause you problems and not likely to generate money?


Okay then: why does my (your, Rockstar's) artform have to suffer for Nintendo's (Sony's, Microsoft's) broken business model? DVD (having a group of companies spread the costs, for instance, is a different business model) doesn't have this problem, after all.

(Although I should piunt out that the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it and the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place are the publisher's decision, not the console manufacturer's, since the publisher is the one taking the financial risk- in the existing business model, it's in the manufacturer's best interest that as many games get licenced as possible, whether they sell or not. And you can argue that controversy didn't harm the first game- in fact, if it wasn't for the controversy, we probably wouldn't have a sequel)


Sad as it is video games still haven't really grown up. They are in their early teens where some adult like material is allowed but the grown ups are going to complain loudly and try to censure them.
Is it really a bad thing that Nintendo, Sony, & Microsoft are trying to be the responsible teens and telling Rockstar to get their act together so as not to cause anymore trouble?


Yes, because a) arguably, Rockstar aren't causing any trouble, b) if they are, it's because "The Grown Ups" have an unreasonable view of what trouble is and c) this isn't something that only affects Rockstar- this effects everyone that wants to make a videogame.

Specifically, this thread isn't really about Manhunt 2, it's about the AO rating in general- bear in mind that Nintendo were all over the game until it got rated, whereas they claimed they're putting a nix on AO games, and probably will for a long time to come.

There are two things specifically wrong with the situation- the first is that if the first parties are going to put a blanket ban on AO games, then using your analogy, they're not in a position to show that they can take responsibility, to show that they are grown up by doing grown up things.

The Manhunt 2 debacle, and to an extend the Manhunt 1 issue and indeed the aparrent Open Season we have on games is not because games *haven't* grown up, it's because it has an *image* of not being grown up- and it isn't allowed to shake this because the wiggle room to grow into (ie- the AO rating) isn't there- it can't even do it "behind the scenes", as it were, where the grownups (ie- the big box retailers) can't see. Manhunt 2 is a Rockstar game- their marketing muscle and brand power make them probably the only company capable of bucking the "specialist store = disaster" trend and makes them the perfect candidate for building the wriggle room, even if it can't fill it.

Secondly, they've all just buckled- no attempt at justifying themselves, no "but Muuuum..."s, just "oops, right, sorry, thank you sir, won't do it again sir." I think I brought this up in the other thread, but the slippery slope thing works both ways- and because of this, we've started sliding down theirs just that little bit further, and it's only a matter of time before we've got our very own comics code.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Okay then: why does my (your, Rockstar's) artform have to suffer for Nintendo's (Sony's, Microsoft's) broken business model? DVD (having a group of companies spread the costs, for instance, is a different business model) doesn't have this problem, after all.

(Although I should piunt out that the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it and the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place are the publisher's decision, not the console manufacturer's, since the publisher is the one taking the financial risk- in the existing business model, it's in the manufacturer's best interest that as many games get licenced as possible, whether they sell or not. And you can argue that controversy didn't harm the first game- in fact, if it wasn't for the controversy, we probably wouldn't have a sequel)



Yes, because a) arguably, Rockstar aren't causing any trouble, b) if they are, it's because "The Grown Ups" have an unreasonable view of what trouble is and c) this isn't something that only affects Rockstar- this effects everyone that wants to make a videogame.

Specifically, this thread isn't really about Manhunt 2, it's about the AO rating in general- bear in mind that Nintendo were all over the game until it got rated, whereas they claimed they're putting a nix on AO games, and probably will for a long time to come.

There are two things specifically wrong with the situation- the first is that if the first parties are going to put a blanket ban on AO games, then using your analogy, they're not in a position to show that they can take responsibility, to show that they are grown up by doing grown up things.

The Manhunt 2 debacle, and to an extend the Manhunt 1 issue and indeed the aparrent Open Season we have on games is not because games *haven't* grown up, it's because it has an *image* of not being grown up- and it isn't allowed to shake this because the wiggle room to grow into (ie- the AO rating) isn't there- it can't even do it "behind the scenes", as it were, where the grownups (ie- the big box retailers) can't see. Manhunt 2 is a Rockstar game- their marketing muscle and brand power make them probably the only company capable of bucking the "specialist store = disaster" trend and makes them the perfect candidate for building the wriggle room, even if it can't fill it.

Secondly, they've all just buckled- no attempt at justifying themselves, no "but Muuuum..."s, just "oops, right, sorry, thank you sir, won't do it again sir." I think I brought this up in the other thread, but the slippery slope thing works both ways- and because of this, we've started sliding down theirs just that little bit further, and it's only a matter of time before we've got our very own comics code.
Of course since its via the industry its not censorship either..nothing wrong self censoring or self limitations...of course it might create mosaics and bleeped words in porn games(schoolmate by iluusoin,mosaics nothing new,bleeping very much so) but who cares,the "industry" is protected whatever that means..

[Tollwutig]

Okay then: why does my (your, Rockstar's) artform have to suffer for Nintendo's (Sony's, Microsoft's) broken business model? DVD (having a group of companies spread the costs, for instance, is a different business model) doesn't have this problem, after all.

Again as I have stated about 50,000 times in the last week, Rockstar is completely free to produce the game. It can make the game PC only, and with the current controversy surrounding it, the AO version of Manhunt 2 may indeed sell very well in a PC only format. Rockstar's art form is being limited by the console manufacturers, only to those who refuse to see the Personal Computer as a possible gaming platform. Considering Blizzard's success in that market, you can not say it is not a viable option. The PC is a viable alternative to the consoles, most people on these forums seem to forget this.

(Although I should piunt out that the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it and the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place are the publisher's decision, not the console manufacturer's, since the publisher is the one taking the financial risk- in the existing business model, it's in the manufacturer's best interest that as many games get licenced as possible, whether they sell or not. And you can argue that controversy didn't harm the first game- in fact, if it wasn't for the controversy, we probably wouldn't have a sequel)

The Big box stores refusing to sell it is again with in their rights. Only when demand and sales out do complaints will this change. This is a business, not an art museum. Businesses have to weigh such factors. Thankfully we have such a thing called the Internet, and with advances in technology, it is entirely possible to sell this program electronically. You may have to alter your marketing strategy; lets say get a controversial rating and then stir up news about the game, and how consoles won't carry it.



Yes, because a) arguably, Rockstar aren't causing any trouble, b) if they are, it's because "The Grown Ups" have an unreasonable view of what trouble is and c) this isn't something that only affects Rockstar- this effects everyone that wants to make a videogame.

The thing is Rockstar does cause trouble. Look at how they handled Hot Coffee. They practically hung the ESRB out to dry and the virtual **** has yet to be cleaned off of the virtual fan. If they had been completely honest regarding how Hot Coffee got on the disks in the first place, it might not have been so bad, and some of the policies regarding AO games on consoles may not exist.


Specifically, this thread isn't really about Manhunt 2, it's about the AO rating in general- bear in mind that Nintendo were all over the game until it got rated, whereas they claimed they're putting a nix on AO games, and probably will for a long time to come.

How much marketing did Nintendo spend on Manhunt 2 being on the Wii before it got it's rating. I know I had heard it was going to be produced on Wii, but that was about it. Unless you produce evidence of Nintendo being all over Manhunt 2 pre ESRB rating, stating so is just conjecture.

Lets follow this conjecture a little further. If Nintendo was all over Manhunt 2 how were they supposed to know the game would rate AO? Every other game Rockstar has produced has been rated T or M. Given this history, Nintendo would have to assume that Rockstar knew closely where the line in the sand existed that they should not cross to keep a game M. Also given that since the Wii came out last year with the same EULA that stated AO games would not be licensed for Wii, Rockstar should know that it could not cross that line if it really intended for Manhunt 2 to run on the Wii.
Rockstar knew the rules upfront. They knew the rules before the Wii was released considering to develop Manhunt 2 they would have had to apply for a developer's license early last year.


There are two things specifically wrong with the situation- the first is that if the first parties are going to put a blanket ban on AO games, then using your analogy, they're not in a position to show that they can take responsibility, to show that they are grown up by doing grown up things.

Once again you see that consoles not licensing AO games as a blanket ban on AO games. This is not the case, the personal computer requires no such license. IT is a viable option, please take off the blinders.


The Manhunt 2 debacle, and to an extend the Manhunt 1 issue and indeed the aparrent Open Season we have on games is not because games *haven't* grown up, it's because it has an *image* of not being grown up- and it isn't allowed to shake this because the wiggle room to grow into (ie- the AO rating) isn't there- it can't even do it "behind the scenes", as it were, where the grownups (ie- the big box retailers) can't see. Manhunt 2 is a Rockstar game- their marketing muscle and brand power make them probably the only company capable of bucking the "specialist store = disaster" trend and makes them the perfect candidate for building the wriggle room, even if it can't fill it.

The "open season" on video games is because games haven't grown up. Specifically gamers haven't grown up. Video games were born in the 1970s. Home consoles coming about in the late 1970s. The generation that completely grew up with Video games are my generation. We're now in our early 30s. Please look at Congress, they average in age around 60. Until my generation becomes the predominate group in control do not look for the "open season" on video games to close. It just isn't going to happen. Even when we are in control there will still be some attacks on video games permitted. Until the Mortal Combat generation gains predominate control you won't see video game monster hunts completely vanish.
Case in point we're only just now getting to that point with movies, although you'll still hear about the occasional monster hunt with a movie.


Secondly, they've all just buckled- no attempt at justifying themselves, no "but Muuuum..."s, just "oops, right, sorry, thank you sir, won't do it again sir." I think I brought this up in the other thread, but the slippery slope thing works both ways- and because of this, we've started sliding down theirs just that little bit further, and it's only a matter of time before we've got our very own comics code.

I don't see putting something out months before it becomes an issue as buckling. The Wii EULA was written well before Manhunt 2 came out. It specifically states Nintendo will not license AO or equivalent games. If the EULA states this the Dev License which would have been written even earlier has to state this.

Also saying Rockstar has no wiggle room is bull ****. They can run the AO version on the PC. Considering the controversy they've generated if they act fast they can use it to drive the market. If there is a market things will change. This is not Field of Dreams here, you need a market before you build a stadium.

If Rockstar can prove that there is a market for Manhunt 2 in it's AO rating and others can repeat it with other games, and there can be show to be enough demand to out weigh the controversy, then the consoles will begin licensing AO games.

After reading todays article I agree with Hal Halpin there needs to be a rating for Porn games versus ultra violent games that go beyond Mature. One of the reasons the consoles are afraid of carrying AO games is that they do not want to be stigmatized as a Porn machine which would kill their sales no matter what they do.

Video Games are a mixture of Art & Business, as much as many here hate it, this is reality and we have to deal with it. The Business drives the Art, and the Art gets expressed only when there is a Business market for it. Hate it all you want, but it is reality. Video Game companies are not there to make games for purely artistic purposes, they must make a profit. Currently the market that will maximize sales dictates what kind of Art is allowed.
Occasionally you'll get an independent developer who will write a video game for Artistic purposes only. Super Columbine Massacre is one such, the producer cared not for profit, but was exploring a tragedy in an artistic format. These producers are the ones who will break new grounds. Rockstar did not produce Manhunt 2 for Artistic purposes, but for profit. If Manhunt 2 is about Art then the game will be released on PC, for a low price and be readily available for Online distribution.

The movie industry is still the best (although not perfect) analog for this. The Independent film makers are the ones who will take the risks and make edgy controversial films. These will be released in limited areas, and in limited formats. They will show up at film festivals. The large movie studios will steer away from such films, although occasionally will pick up and expand the audience of a critically acclaimed film. The large studios will produce only movies they feel will turn a profit and steer away from controversial topics until the Independent producers have broken down the barriers to that topic.


Now take the above paragraph and change Movie & film to Video game.

It may not be something you like but it is reality.

[Jabrwock]

Just like the Postal series, this could easily be a PC-only title, and do ok for itself. Really, was Rockstar expecting this to get through? They have 2 choices, tone it down so the console market is open to them, or release it PC-only.

Plus, if they DO manage to get the M rating, this game has gotten so much publicity from being "banned" that there's tons of free advertising.

Heck they could even pull an Indigo prophecy, sell an M rated version in stores, with a coupon for the "AO" rated director's cut/upgrade, sold online (though that was PC only as well).

[beemoh]

Ooh, it's a big two-parter. Please hold onto your responses until I've posted both. Thanks!

Again as I have stated about 50,000 times in the last week, Rockstar is completely free to produce the game. It can make the game PC only, and with the current controversy surrounding it, the AO version of Manhunt 2 may indeed sell very well in a PC only format. Rockstar's art form is being limited by the console manufacturers, only to those who refuse to see the Personal Computer as a possible gaming platform. Considering Blizzard's success in that market, you can not say it is not a viable option. The PC is a viable alternative to the consoles, most people on these forums seem to forget this.

Sorry, is it or isn't it? Make your mind up.

Either way, though, to bring back the DVD analogy again, if Manufacturer A has decided to lock out NC-17 rated DVDs from all its players, I can still take that very same disc, put it into a player by Manufacturer B and have it play in exactly the same fashion as it would if I could play NC-17 DVDs on Manufacturer A's player.

Wii software will not execute on a PC, a 360 or a PSanything. If some technically-minded soul creates a Wii emulator for PC, it won't quite play in the same way it would on real hardware on a technical level, and that's before we get to the hurdle of the Wiimote. Even a port, as you are suggesting Rockstar do, probably won't quite work the same way, even assuming I have the right hardware configuration and the right specifications and the right patches and it doesn't conflict with something else on my machine and so on. (I understand that great progress has been made in this field, and that consoles are slowly going the same way, but we're hardly into plug-and-play territory.)

There isn't a true system of opting out, as there is with DVDs.

The Big box stores refusing to sell it is again with in their rights. and the rest of that paragraph

I'm not disputing that- but it's not a justification for Nintendo's decision, because such a decision isn't theirs. If Rockstar were to not produce it in the first place because Wal-Mart won't stock it, then I can see why it would become part of your arguent- but obviously that's not what has happened.

Remember, Nintendo aren't the ones who have spent the money on Manhunt 2, unless there was some business deal we haven't seen which brought the game to Wii in the first place. If MH2 bombs at retail, it's really not Nintendo's problem- they've already got the money from the initial licencing.

The rest of that section, which I've cut out, is true, yes. But entirely irrelevant.

The thing is Rockstar does cause trouble. Look at how they handled Hot Coffee. They practically hung the ESRB out to dry and the virtual **** has yet to be cleaned off of the virtual fan. If they had been completely honest regarding how Hot Coffee got on the disks in the first place, it might not have been so bad, and some of the policies regarding AO games on consoles may not exist.

Okay, I bring you to my point B: "if they are, it's because "The Grown Ups" have an unreasonable view of what trouble is".

The games industry has done everything- everything- the anti-game lobby has asked of it, and more. We have a working ratings system (or at least, we do when buyers use it) which takes up more space on the packaging than it does for film. It's also stricter than the film ratings, according to a certain NY Times journo (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/arts/25manh.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182943557-SUR8GWq9peTdMByxwagGVQ), for no good reason, especially considering that the BBFC are of the opinion that the effect of game violence is less than that of film (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/26682/BBFC-to-rethink-age-guidelines). There are also now parental controls in all three of the consoles, and the top rating is more or less out of bounds, not just due to market forces, but also due to a bunch of execs in their ivory towers.

The games industry, broadly speaking, is a model student, currently being punished for sneezing in class.

How much marketing did Nintendo spend on Manhunt 2 being on the Wii before it got it's rating. I know I had heard it was going to be produced on Wii, but that was about it. Unless you produce evidence of Nintendo being all over Manhunt 2 pre ESRB rating, stating so is just conjecture.

Lets follow this conjecture a little further. If Nintendo was all over Manhunt 2 how were they supposed to know the game would rate AO? Every other game Rockstar has produced has been rated T or M. Given this history, Nintendo would have to assume that Rockstar knew closely where the line in the sand existed that they should not cross to keep a game M. Also given that since the Wii came out last year with the same EULA that stated AO games would not be licensed for Wii, Rockstar should know that it could not cross that line if it really intended for Manhunt 2 to run on the Wii.
Rockstar knew the rules upfront. They knew the rules before the Wii was released considering to develop Manhunt 2 they would have had to apply for a developer's license early last year.

Okay, 'all over' is an exaggeration. But Nintendo have been actively chasing Take Two for games (http://www.mtv.com/games/video_games/news/story.jhtml?id=1541183). They even go as far as to say that they're after higher-rated games- Rockstar's speciality, and any comment from Nintendo about the game prior to the rating was about how they were okay with it.

Now they get one and they try to disassociate themselves from it, not because it was Manhunt 2- which was my point in that part of the post, they were quite happy with Manhunt 2 before- but because of its rating.

If somebody else comes along with an AO rating tomorow, that game doesn't get a release either, and that is, to an extent, the issue.

Once again you see that consoles not licensing AO games as a blanket ban on AO games. This is not the case, the personal computer requires no such license. IT is a viable option, please take off the blinders.

But a bit ago you said it wasn't! Screw my aparrent blinders, make *your* mind up.

The "open season" on video games is because games haven't grown up. Specifically gamers haven't grown up. Video games were born in the 1970s. Home consoles coming about in the late 1970s. The generation that completely grew up with Video games are my generation. We're now in our early 30s. Please look at Congress, they average in age around 60. Until my generation becomes the predominate group in control do not look for the "open season" on video games to close. It just isn't going to happen. Even when we are in control there will still be some attacks on video games permitted. Until the Mortal Combat generation gains predominate control you won't see video game monster hunts completely vanish.

So we should just give up? We should just wait for all those 40pluses to cop it, and away we go? Or do we fight, and convince the 40s, the 50s or even the 60s to think our way?

I think we've got two different definitions of "open season" between us, but from my UK-centric perspective, the current one started with Manchester Cathedral. Had it not been for that, the Manhunt 2 situation would have panned out differently, and the Jamie Bulger/Law & Order thing wouldn't even have been news. For you, it seems to have been everything from Mortal Kombat to the present day, but maybe I'm wrong.

The point is that the OSes aren't just going to drop off suddenly, it's something that's going to wear away. As you rightly identify, there are 30somethings who see the 60something's views and are quite happily nodding in agreement.

If we don't push games content now, the 30somethings aren't going to change their mind, and it might not be your generation that has enough support to finally tip the balance, we may have to wait another ten years for the 20somethings to do it.

The anti-game lobby, remember, is doing the same thing the other way.

I said in my last post that slippery slopes go both ways- we have to push so that we don't slip down the one we don't want to.

I don't see putting something out months before it becomes an issue as buckling.

They jumped before they had to! How is that *not* buckling?

The AO rule was probably put there before AO was relevant, before people wanted to make- or were technically capable of making- AO games. There has been no consideration put into the notion of re-thinking this rule, because it's outdated or obsolete. There has been no suggestion that Nintendo does not believe that Manhunt 2 deserves an AO rating. In fact, Nintendo have actively suggested a universal condemnation of the AO rating.

Also saying Rockstar has no wiggle room is bull ****. They can run the AO version on the PC. Considering the controversy they've generated if they act fast they can use it to drive the market. If there is a market things will change. This is not Field of Dreams here, you need a market before you build a stadium.

While I haven't seen FoD, I'm going to assume that when they built their stadium, they put it somewhere people could find it, and then let anybody come in, rather than stick it at the top of a mountain, and then only let you anywhere near it if you were wearing the right kind of mountaineering gear, and if the people who made the building materials say you can.

I know that the PC platform being a pain in the arse isn't Rockstar's fault, but it's that reason you can't just point at the PC as a free-for-all.

[beemoh]

After reading todays article I agree with Hal Halpin there needs to be a rating for Porn games versus ultra violent games that go beyond Mature.

I'm not familiar with the US film ratings system- is there a porn rating for film? If there isn't, then adding one to games is just making matters worse.

One of the reasons the consoles are afraid of carrying AO games is that they do not want to be stigmatized as a Porn machine which would kill their sales no matter what they do.

But!
This!
Does!
Not!
Affect!
DVD!
Players!

Even then, how do you explain Sony's ambivalence about porn UMDs being released for PSP?

The movie industry is still the best (although not perfect) analog for this. The Independent film makers are the ones who will take the risks and make edgy controversial films. These will be released in limited areas, and in limited formats. They will show up at film festivals. The large movie studios will steer away from such films, although occasionally will pick up and expand the audience of a critically acclaimed film. The large studios will produce only movies they feel will turn a profit and steer away from controversial topics until the Independent producers have broken down the barriers to that topic.

It's a useless analogue here because the majors aren't telling me what I can and can't play on my DVD player! I take my edgy indie film home on DVD and it still works!

Maybe you can compare this to the cinema to a certain extent given that there's limited screen room, or TV and hours in a day to broadcast, but then we're not dealing with something directly comparable to console games any more- arcades maybe, but then that's not what we're discussing.

It may not be something you like but it is reality.

So we should just accept that? Enjoy Mario Party 26.

[Jabrwock]

Sony (& Nintendo) have proprietary game functionality. So you need to license the right to use that functionality in order to get the game to work in their console. The same is not true of DVDs. Anyone can make a DVD, only the player manufacturers need to get a license.

Actually the porn thing has come up with the "new" DVDs. Sony has forbidden the two disc manufacturers it controls from making adult discs, and 5 more refuse to do so because their contract with Disney says so. So that leaves only 1 manufacturer in the world who can make pornographic Bluray discs. HD-DVD manufacturers have much fewer restrictions.

The MPAA used to use "X" to denote material that was unsuitable for minors, and the porn industry jokingly used "XXX" to indicate that it was "most definitely" unsuitable (although some porn studios actually had X, XX, and XXX ratings depending on the content...) Now they use NC-17 to denote "adult" material, that may merely be for extreme violence rather than sex...

[ZippyDSMlee]

Could a blacklist system work for the US where a game or movie is on the industries list,this game/movie can not be displayed or sold normally,it is behind the counter and can only be bought by adults ,if you have a store that only has adult traffic you can display it even,while not mainstream friendly it dose give a place for AO titles to be sold at stores that want to do it.

thus the industry can "protect teh children" while at the same time keeping "censorship" to a reasonable level.

[ZippyDSMlee]

I have noticed cheat devices are not approved for game systems yet they make them,but lately they have not been try so hard to make them,is that because its hard to create them for todays advanced games or simply they are not approved?

[Tollwutig]

Sorry, is it or isn't it? Make your mind up.

There is no making up my mind. The PC is a viable format.

Either way, though, to bring back the DVD analogy again...

Again DVD is a really bad example as it is not a closed proprietary format. It is a format that is open and licensed to multiple manufacturers and not controlled by a single company. Wii & PSx are both proprietary consoles exclusively owned by Nintendo & Sony respectively. Nintendo & Sony own their console license. Panasonic/Sony/Samsung/HP/Microsoft/Hitachi/IBM does not own DVD, anyone can pay a license fee to manufacture one. This makes it an open license.


Wii software will not execute on a PC, a 360 or a PSanything....etc
It is highly unlikely that Manhunt 2 was developed twice. Developers don't develop in Wii or PSx. They develop in programming languages on PCs. Once they have a final product they compile that product from the programming language into something the OS can understand. Remember the Wii, PSx, or the Personal Computer all have Operating Systems. So no importing Manhunt 2 into a PC game would not take any significant programming. In all likelihood such a product already exists given it would be easier for alpha testing & QA than to do burn multiple disks and using multiple test consoles.

There isn't a true system of opting out, as there is with DVDs.
Again DVD=open system Game consoles=proprietary systems. Not the same thing please stop using this as an example, it is a bad one. If DIVX had caught on and there had been a competing technology you'd have something, but DIVX died due to DVD being an open format.



I'm not disputing that- but it's not a justification for Nintendo's decision, because such a decision isn't theirs. If Rockstar were to not produce it in the first place because Wal-Mart won't stock it, then I can see why it would become part of your arguent- but obviously that's not what has happened.

Doesn't matter if the product is out for the Wii, it is going to have Nintendo's name on it, therefore Nintendo has a large say as to what can and can not be put out for the Wii. It is Nintendo's decision whether Rockstar can put the Wii or Nintendo's logo on any box, if Rockstar wants to do this it has to follow Nintendo's rules.


Remember, Nintendo aren't the ones who have spent the money on Manhunt 2, unless there was some business deal we haven't seen which brought the game to Wii in the first place. If MH2 bombs at retail, it's really not Nintendo's problem- they've already got the money from the initial licencing.

If Manhunt 2 were to bomb in Retail, Nintendo would lose money, as a percentage of sales for the game would go to Nintendo. Console manufacturers make most of their money off of the license which includes a portion of the sales profit.


Okay, I bring you to my point B: "if they are, it's because "The Grown Ups" have an unreasonable view of what trouble is".

The games industry has done everything- ...
The games industry, broadly speaking, is a model student, currently being punished for sneezing in class.

I wouldn't call the games industry a model student, but it is one that is improving. Also I've never said that the stigma on AO is a just one, just that Nintendo & Sony have the right to block it from their consoles.



Okay, 'all over' is an exaggeration. But Nintendo ... Rockstar's speciality, and any comment from Nintendo about the game prior to the rating was about how they were okay with it.
Now they get one and they try to disassociate themselves from it, not because it was Manhunt 2- which was my point in that part of the post, they were quite happy with Manhunt 2 before- but because of its rating.

I lacked this information in this post. It seems Nintendo does want more Mature games out for the Wii. It does not want Adults Only games on it's console. In developing the game Rockstar still knew this. It is up front and been in the EULA of the Wii since it's release. It is not unreasonable that the understanding was that Manhunt 2 was supposed to get a M rating. Rockstar pushed the envelope so far as to break it's agreement.



If somebody else comes along with an AO rating tomorow, that game doesn't get a release,on Wii or PSx either, and that is, to an extent, the issue.

Fixed for correctness. There are AO rated games, they come out on the PC. An AO rating is not a ban on the game, nor a infringement of speech by the console manufacturers.
Your issue is that you will not be able to play Game X on a Wii or Playstation. I say that is your issue as I can readily enjoy Game X on a PC.



But a bit ago you said it wasn't! Screw my aparrent blinders, make *your* mind up.
You are confusing me because I have never said that the PC is not a viable option. For your clarification though. The PC is a viable alternative to gaming consoles.


So we should just give up? We should just wait for all those 40pluses to cop it, and away we go? Or do we fight, and convince the 40s, the 50s or even the 60s to think our way?
No you should learn some patience. The movie industry did, it took a very long time, but this generation has no patience they want culture change to fast forward 50 years in less than 10.



I think we've got two different definitions of "open season" between us, but from my UK-centric perspective, the current one started with Manchester Cathedral. Had it not been for that, the Manhunt 2 situation would have panned out differently, and the Jamie Bulger/Law & Order thing wouldn't even have been news. For you, it seems to have been everything from Mortal Kombat to the present day, but maybe I'm wrong.

I think it started with Hot Coffee and not owning up to what you put on a disk. Much ammo has been generated against video games all because of Hot Coffee.


The point is that the OSes aren't just going to drop off suddenly, it's something that's going to wear away. As you rightly identify, there are 30somethings who see the 60something's views and are quite happily nodding in agreement.

If we don't push games content now, the 30somethings aren't going to change their mind, and it might not be your generation that has enough support to finally tip the balance, we may have to wait another ten years for the 20somethings to do it.

The anti-game lobby, remember, is doing the same thing the other way.

I said in my last post that slippery slopes go both ways- we have to push so that we don't slip down the one we don't want to.

But pushing the envelope too much turns the middle ground against you. The slippery slope is something that can favor either side but pushing it in the extreme makes it easier for the other side to get control of the situation.


They jumped before they had to! How is that *not* buckling?
I am confused by this sentence


The AO rule was probably put there before AO was relevant, before people wanted to make- or were technically capable of making- AO games. There has been no consideration put into the notion of re-thinking this rule, because it's outdated or obsolete. There has been no suggestion that Nintendo does not believe that Manhunt 2 deserves an AO rating. In fact, Nintendo have actively suggested a universal condemnation of the AO rating.

All of that is Nintendo's prerogative as they own the license to the Wii. Clearly stated in their EULA that they will not license a game which obtains an Adults Only rating or equivalent. They own the license they make the rules. Don't like the rules? Make your own system. Really all of the ESRB ratings could be rethought, not likely though. Also it would be very bad publicity for Nintendo to comment further. Sometimes its just smarter not to comment on something like this than to run ones mouth.


While I haven't seen FoD, ....

Then the point is lost on you. Basically Kevin Costner builds a Baseball stadium in the middle of nowhere (in a corn field) and baseball legends and fans just start to show up. The thing is people couldn't find it yet they came.

Anyways the point was that this is the real world not FoD. You better have a market for something before you build it


I know that the PC platform being a pain in the arse isn't Rockstar's fault, but it's that reason you can't just point at the PC as a free-for-all.

The PC platform isn't a pain in the arse. That's an opinion.

I'm not familiar with the US film ratings system- is there a porn rating for film? If there isn't, then adding one to games is just making matters worse.

http://www.mpaa.org/ Familiarize yourself.



But!
This!
Does!
Not!
Affect!
DVD!
Players!

But!
DVD!
IS!
NOT!
A!
PROPRIETARY!
LICENSE!
How hard is this to get into your head?

...
It's a useless analogue here because the majors aren't telling me what I can and can't play on my DVD player! I take my edgy indie film home on DVD and it still works!
Maybe you can compare this to the cinema ..

So we should just accept that? Enjoy Mario Party 26.

*bangs head at lack of understanding the difference between a proprietary license like Wii & Playstation & an open format license like DVD*

[beemoh]

I'm going to re-arrange the post, as we have a number of different arguments on the go, and they're getting a bit muddled, and it's easier to sort them out than have to make the same point three times in each post.

The DVD Analogy

Again DVD is a really bad example as it is not a closed proprietary format. It is a format that is open and licensed to multiple manufacturers and not controlled by a single company. Wii & PSx are both proprietary consoles exclusively owned by Nintendo & Sony respectively. Nintendo & Sony own their console license. Panasonic/Sony/Samsung/HP/Microsoft/Hitachi/IBM does not own DVD, anyone can pay a license fee to manufacture one. This makes it an open license.

It is a perfect example because DVD is not a closed, proprietary format!

Back when I made my reference to using DRM to achieve the same effect (http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showpost.php?p=43877&postcount=23) and I asked why the music industry shouldn't adopt this, all I got told was that they don't.

You- eventually- came up with your points (http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?p=44023#post44023) which got us to this part of the thread, but they all fall over because every justification for doing so doesn't apply to DVD, because it is not a closed, proprietary format, which is the point I've been trying to make all this time- everything else has been irrelevant, and to an extent the questions I asked when I replied to that post still haven't been answered.

While keeping the consoles closed may well have proven very profitable for their respective manufacturers (except Microsoft, obv), it really isn't the way forward for the industry or the artform, as you point out yourself:

If DIVX had caught on and there had been a competing technology you'd have something, but DIVX died due to DVD being an open format.

I do have it in my head that the two are different, and I do understand the difference- that's why I disagree with your arguments.

Isn't it annoying when analogies get in the way of actual arguments? :D

Console manufacturers make most of their money off of the license which includes a portion of the sales profit.

And? Why is that anybody's problem other than the console manufacturer's?

Take the DVD Forum again. Look at the ten founding companies on Wikipedia. Five of them are content providers, or have fingers in content-providing pies. They make their money putting their films or TV shows on DVDs and putting them on shelves, or from manufacturing DVD players. I said upthread that the games industry business model is broken. This is how.

(Not that the DVD Forum don't take any money from other people's DVDs, you understand, but it's not *the* income)

Technical issues

It is highly unlikely that Manhunt 2 was developed twice. Developers don't develop in Wii or PSx. They develop in programming languages on PCs. Once they have a final product they compile that product from the programming language into something the OS can understand. Remember the Wii, PSx, or the Personal Computer all have Operating Systems. So no importing Manhunt 2 into a PC game would not take any significant programming. In all likelihood such a product already exists given it would be easier for alpha testing & QA than to do burn multiple disks and using multiple test consoles.

Not strictly true.

You might have been following the flap around DirectX 10/Vista and Halo 2- what DirectX does, if you're not familiar, is act as a go-between, of sorts, between the OS and the graphics hardware- putting SomeDXCommand(); into your software calls a part of the OS which tells the graphics hardware to do whatever SomeDXCommand(); makes it do, so you don't have to program it yourself or waste disk space on it, because it's already on the machine waiting for you to call.

(I know the fact that there's a DX installer on every PC game disc sort of nullifies that last bit, but even then at least it's only on your HD once, and not once per game)

DX is more or less Windows exclusive- DX10 arguably to one version of Windows- so calling SomeDXCommand(); in a piece of Wii software isn't going to work, as Wii (like PS2/3) uses a similar thing called OpenGL, which doesn't have a SomeDXCommand();, and instead has a SomeOGLCommand();, so all references to one have to be replaced with references to the other.

That might seem simple enough, but given that Wii (again, like PS2) is running on a modified version of OGL, SomeOGLCommand(); might not behave the same way on Wii as it does on PS2- in the same way SomeOGLCommand(); may not be the same as SomeDXCommand();, so Find-And-Replace on your Wii code isn't going to get you a perfectly functional PS2 or PC game, and that's before you get to the issues brought up by the three different controllers.

While this isn't a *total* rewrite of the game- just the graphics- it's not 'just' re-compiling the code.

For reference, BTW, console testing tends to run on special console units designed to run rewritable discs or hard drives accessed over LANs.

Nintendo's Input

Doesn't matter if the product is out for the Wii, it is going to have Nintendo's name on it, therefore Nintendo has a large say as to what can and can not be put out for the Wii. It is Nintendo's decision whether Rockstar can put the Wii or Nintendo's logo on any box, if Rockstar wants to do this it has to follow Nintendo's rules.

You're missing the point, there. You gave three reasons (http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showpost.php?p=44182&postcount=51) why Nintendo might not licence a game:

1/the Big Box stores are going to refuse to carry it
2/you are likely to get protests due to special interest groups
3/the predecessor of this game didn't sell all that well in the first place

I said that #1 and #3 do not concern Nintendo, and said nothing about #2. Your comment here only applies to #2, which we weren't discussing, and all your other comments in relation to Nintendo's decision to licence a game are irrelevant. #3, as we know doesn't apply to MH2, and if it did, it comes under the same bracket as #1, which we come to next.

If Manhunt 2 were to bomb in Retail, Nintendo would lose money, as a percentage of sales for the game would go to Nintendo.

Nintendo would not *lose* money. They would *lose out* on money, which is very very different. They'd probably profit- with Manhunt, Rockstar pays (x) amount for a dev kit, (y) for the initial licence and (z) per copy pressed, and (n) to make the game- the percentage. The game bombs, Nintendo still have (x), (y), and (z) in the bank whether the discs are on my shelves or HMV's. They just don't get a second load of (z) when they run out of the first lot. Rockstar lose money, but Nintendo make it, just not as much as they could.

Perhaps it's a problem for Nintendo when they're developing a game, or funding the development for a game they're publishing (which they aren't, here), but not for a third party game they have nothing to do with.

Cluck... Cluck... B'kaaaat!

I wouldn't call the games industry a model student, but it is one that is improving.

...then what more do you want it to do? It was asked to implement a ratings system- so it did one. It was asked to promote these ratings- so it did. It's not the industry's fault people don't bother to use them. It's not the industry's fault everyone jumps on the tiniest little ****ups. (Even if they could handle them a touch better)

I lacked this information in this post. It seems Nintendo does want more Mature games out for the Wii. It does not want Adults Only games on it's console. In developing the game Rockstar still knew this. It is up front and been in the EULA of the Wii since it's release. It is not unreasonable that the understanding was that Manhunt 2 was supposed to get a M rating. Rockstar pushed the envelope so far as to break it's agreement.

However, until MH2, there had never been an AO game of this... let's say "significance", to the games industry as a whole as well as just Nintendo.

Never before has any potential AO game had so much exposure in the mainstream media. Never before has the artform been under so much pressure to show that it can provide content for adults as well as children. Never before has the industry been under so much scrutiny to show that it can show *cough* "responsibility" and actually use its rating system fully. Never before has a *hnngh* platform holder had to show so much that it has a greater range of software on its system than lightweight party games and cartoon platformers.

The right thing for Nintendo and Sony to do would be to stand by the game- and indeed the greater AO rating- rather than just run away from it, especially when the game itself was actively welcomed to begin with, which just makes them look all the more hypocritical. If they'd at least put on the act of condemning the game until the rating *then* saying no, then it would be a bit better, but doing what they have done looks like they've gone "****! Bad PR!" and swiftly backpedalled.

[beemoh]

Okay, that is what they've done. But it doesn't need to look like it.

Next (most likely lesser) issue that comes up, they'll be expected to do the same thing, otherwise it's PR ****storm time. And this is where we get our open seasons from- not because the games industry's doing stupid things, but because it's doing stupid things and not standing by them.

Speaking of which...

Games Industry Image Problems

I think it started with Hot Coffee and not owning up to what you put on a disk. Much ammo has been generated against video games all because of Hot Coffee.

Hrm. Not going to disagree with the second bit, although HC wasn't the story over here it was Stateside, and there have been times since where it's been worse than others. There definately have been "clear" areas.

The first bit? I still don't really think we've got the whole story with Hot Coffee, but maybe it's just me being too optimistic. HC really was the opening Jack & co. were looking for- so one day everything in Rockstarland is fine, the next it's all the world's media going OMGWHYAREYOUPEDDLINGPORNOGRAPHYTOKIDSISTHISREALLYI NTHEGAMEBANTHISSICKFILTHEVERYONESGONNASUEYOUWHYARE YOUNOTRESPONDINGIT'SBEENFIVEENTIREMINUTESGOINGTODE STROYROCKSTARWE'RETAKINGYOURGAMEOFFTHESHELVESDISBA NDTHEESRBHANGEIBELERFROMTHEHIGHESTGALLOWWTFBBQ and Rockstar get criticised for not responding because they're still trying to work out where the spaces go in that sentence, and coming up with the best answer they could at the time: that they believe it to be fake.

I mean, if you were the guy responsible for that poor spackle job of cutting the minigame out of GTASA- whether it should have been there or not- and by proxy, responsible for the above incomprehensible diatribe (the world's media bit, not my entire post) you're not going to own up to it, are you? PR takes the information it has and makes the reasonable assumption that it isn't their problem.

Ignoring that, if AO wasn't the kiss of death it is, would the game have not needed to be cut?

Maybe I'm just being too optimistic or making excuses, but either way, what should have just been an object of minor satire to some harmless subset of society (http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2005/06/gta-san-andreas-porn-shame.html) got far more attention than it deserves, because we spend too long bending over backwards for critics.

No you should learn some patience. The movie industry did, it took a very long time, but this generation has no patience they want cultu