Game Industry Thinks They're Special; Whines About Stuff Everyone Else Gets

[HG Revolution]

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17257&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000024

Let me just say that the games industry is awfully whiny compared to the film industry. They're saying the AO is seen as worse than an NC-17, when last time I checked only arthouse theaters would play NC-17 films and retailers don't like to sell them. Why else do so many movies like Scarface, Team America, Kill Bill, etc. censor themselves for theatrical release and then release "unrated director's cuts"?

[Tanooki]

mod note

title edited. watch your language

[Mynd Hed]

The difference is that there's unlikely to ever be an "unrated director's cut" of Manhunt 2, so there is a double standard at work.

My thoughts on the issues involved, broken down:

1.) The ESRB rates Manhunt 2 AO.
Verdict: Fine. It's their job to rate games. I haven't played the game myself or looked too deeply into what specifically caused it to get that rating, but in my experience ESRB ratings tend to be pretty fair, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the game's content does warrant such a rating.

2.) Retailers refuse to stock AO games.
Verdict: I'm of two minds about this one. On the one hand, sure, the retailers have the right to stock or not stock whatever they want. On the other hand, most of these same retailers have no problem stocking the aforementioned unrated "too hot for theatres" versions of films. So it's a bit of a double standard. Making the decision that Manhunt 2 isn't a game they want to stock is one thing; making it a blanket policy that unrated versions of movies (where "unrated" is code for "would've gotten an NC-17 had we submitted it for rating, which is why we didn't bother") are usually okay but unrated or AO video games are NEVER okay smacks of hypocrisy.

3.) Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft refuse to license AO games.
Verdict: Now THIS is pure, unfiltered crap. When's the last time you heard of Toshiba making a DVD player that wouldn't play NC-17 movies? Never, that's when. And I've asked this before, but never really received an answer: what's stopping Rockstar from just releasing the game in its AO form without Nintendo and Sony's blessing? What would Nintendo's and Sony's recourse be in this case? When push comes to shove, how much control do they really have over the software that's released on their platforms? I'm really curious about this.

[Robin2099]

3.) Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft refuse to license AO games.
Verdict: Now THIS is pure, unfiltered crap. When's the last time you heard of Toshiba making a DVD player that wouldn't play NC-17 movies? Never, that's when. And I've asked this before, but never really received an answer: what's stopping Rockstar from just releasing the game in its AO form without Nintendo and Sony's blessing? What would Nintendo's and Sony's recourse be in this case? When push comes to shove, how much control do they really have over the software that's released on their platforms? I'm really curious about this.

One word:Lawsuit. Sony and Nintendo own the consoles that are publishing the games, thus any game that ends up on the console has to be approved by them. If Rockstar were to publish Wii versions and sell them without the approval of Nintendo then Nintendo could sue and get the game halted, causing even more money loss. All console developers are very protective of their properties now a days because doing things like that are what killed videogames in the first place. Your right though, it is a double standard, especaily since pronography is available on Blue-Ray which can be played on PS3's.

[Mynd Hed]

Isn't this sort of similar to the case Nintendo brought against Galoob, though, in which Nintendo wanted to halt the production and sale of the Game Genie, an unauthorized product designed to work with Nintendo hardware? IIRC, Galoob won, and was able to continue producing the Game Genie without Nintendo's little gold seal of approval.
Naturally this case is slightly different because we're talking about software as opposed to hardware, but I'd be very curious to see if such a lawsuit would really hold up if a game maker was willing to stand up to a console maker in court.

[HG Revolution]

The difference is that there's unlikely to ever be an "unrated director's cut" of Manhunt 2, so there is a double standard at work.

The smart thing would be to release it on Gametap.

And then format the controls for the Wii browser.

Voila! Problem solved without having to deal with crap from the console makers (who are being annoying in this case and are really the only ones who deserve to be complained about).

[Robin2099]

Isn't this sort of similar to the case Nintendo brought against Galoob, though, in which Nintendo wanted to halt the production and sale of the Game Genie, an unauthorized product designed to work with Nintendo hardware? IIRC, Galoob won, and was able to continue producing the Game Genie without Nintendo's little gold seal of approval.
Naturally this case is slightly different because we're talking about software as opposed to hardware, but I'd be very curious to see if such a lawsuit would really hold up if a game maker was willing to stand up to a console maker in court.
It's different because like you said, one was hardware the other was software. Making stuff compatible with the system is perfectly legal since Nintendo has no say over what companies make hardware wise. The big difference being that they market it as "being playable with your Wii" their not marketing it as an official Nintendo product. If Rockstar was to develop and sell Manhunt without their permission then they would be in trouble because that wouldn't be an official Nintendo product for the console, it would be considered a bootleg since what goes on the console needs Nintendo's approval. That's the reason why we don't see companies pulling things like Tengen now a days.

[Mynd Hed]

I'm still not sure I follow the logic; to extend the analogy yet further, if I play a pornographic DVD on my Toshiba DVD player, that doesn't reflect poorly on Toshiba. If I frequent questionable web sites on my PC, that doesn't raise the ire of Microsoft if I'm running Windows, or Dell if they're the ones who made my computer (they're not, but just for the sake of argument). Why is it only video games console makers that get to have such tight control over what software is allowed to run on their hardware?

[Chris Wood]

Perhaps because unlike DVDs and the Internet, video games are still seen as primarily children's entertainment.

[Dogbert]

Also, the very fact that a game is for Wii, PS3, or 360 automatically causes someone to associate the game with Nintendo, Sony, and/or Microsoft. I work on survey research, and the federally suggestion question for video games actually calls the example system "a Nintendo." Honestly, how many people off the top of their head could name the DVD format's creators and licensers?

[Gokou Ruri]

Perhaps because unlike DVDs and the Internet, video games are still seen as primarily children's entertainment. We have a winner.

Parents are more than likely to be stupid and get an AO game for Jimmy because it's by Nintento, but are less likely to get Bloodbuckets and Orgies rated X from the DVD aisle, because they know movies can be for adults only, where a lot of parents still think video games are kiddy.

[Robin2099]

I'm still not sure I follow the logic; to extend the analogy yet further, if I play a pornographic DVD on my Toshiba DVD player, that doesn't reflect poorly on Toshiba. If I frequent questionable web sites on my PC, that doesn't raise the ire of Microsoft if I'm running Windows, or Dell if they're the ones who made my computer (they're not, but just for the sake of argument). Why is it only video games console makers that get to have such tight control over what software is allowed to run on their hardware?'
You got to remember though that there are so many different DVD players and PC's out their no one really knows the difference. If you want to make a DVD, of pornography you don't need to clear it with Sony, Toshiba, etc because their doing nothing more then liscenscing the patent to make DVD players, so their third parties. N/M/S own the patent to their console systems and the technology in them, and if you want to put it on their you need to get it by them. Now with Blue Ray and HDVD they could say they don't want pornography if they want to because Sony and Toshiba are the only manufacturers. But they would be stupuid too since porn is so popular and helped VHS overtake Beta.

[Gokou Ruri]

'
You got to remember though that there are so many different DVD players and PC's out their no one really knows the difference. If you want to make a DVD, of pornography you don't need to clear it with Sony, Toshiba, etc because their doing nothing more then liscenscing the patent to make DVD players, so their third parties. N/M/S own the patent to their console systems and the technology in them, and if you want to put it on their you need to get it by them. Now with Blue Ray and HDVD they could say they don't want pornography if they want to because Sony and Toshiba are the only manufacturers. But they would be stupuid too since porn is so popular and helped VHS overtake Beta. I think I heard Blu-Ray banned pornography.

[BrendaBat]

Let me just say that the games industry is awfully whiny compared to the film industry. They're saying the AO is seen as worse than an NC-17, when last time I checked only arthouse theaters would play NC-17 films and retailers don't like to sell them. Why else do so many movies like Scarface, Team America, Kill Bill, etc. censor themselves for theatrical release and then release "unrated director's cuts"?
Well, its about time somebody said it! :D
I also don't understand why video companies cry "DON'T CENSOR OUR FREE SPEECH!!!" when someone suggests passing legislation making it illegal to sell M and AO rated games to kids under 18. Those same laws apply to porn and movies that get an R-rating or higher. But you don't see film makers or Hugh Heffner complaining that their first amendment rights have been violated.


3.) Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft refuse to license AO games.
Verdict: Now THIS is pure, unfiltered crap. When's the last time you heard of Toshiba making a DVD player that wouldn't play NC-17 movies? Never, that's when. And I've asked this before, but never really received an answer: what's stopping Rockstar from just releasing the game in its AO form without Nintendo and Sony's blessing? What would Nintendo's and Sony's recourse be in this case? When push comes to shove, how much control do they really have over the software that's released on their platforms? I'm really curious about this.
Agree with you there. My guess is that those companies would rather avoid the controversy attached to AO games than take a chance on them.

[SAMaine]

The main problem with unlicensed games on consoles is that there IS proven precident against them. This goes all the way back to the Atari 2600. A group of disgruntled Atari programmers wanted CREDIT for their games, so they united to form Activision, the world's first third-party. Atari sued Activision on the grounds that it was their console and lost that case. While Activision was a GREAT third-party developer, now anyone can make Atari 2600 games. This includes loads of crappy shovelware and even some porn games. Well, all this shovelware got put in bargain bins and being bought and hated by consumers, it caused the Big Video Game Crash that signaled the end of the Atari Era. Now this story goes to another company, Nintendo. Nintendo noticed the mistakes that Atari made and what killed gaming. Thus Nintendo implimented licenses for its new console, the Nintendo Entertainment System. This license meant that Nintendo had to approve a game in regards to quality and content before it could be published. Tengen sued about this lock-out and lost the case. The system Nintendo created became standard for every console afterwards.

So yeah, Nintendo and Sony would sue Rockstar and bring up Tengen vs. Nintendo, and thus Rockstar loses the case.

[Robin2099]

I think I heard Blu-Ray banned pornography.
That was a rumor but Sony came out and said that they weren't banning it.

[Robin2099]

Well, its about time somebody said it! :D
I also don't understand why video companies cry "DON'T CENSOR OUR FREE SPEECH!!!" when someone suggests passing legislation making it illegal to sell M and AO rated games to kids under 18. Those same laws apply to porn and movies that get an R-rating or higher. But you don't see film makers or Hugh Heffner complaining that their first amendment rights have been violated.

Except for the fact that it isn't illegal to sell tickets or DVD's of R rated movies. Porn is something entirely different too because porn is something that has always been considered for adult consumption, and I highly doubt they would complain that they can't market to 17 year olds. The game industry gets scrutinized mainly because people still think it's only for kids, while something that's made for adult gamers ultimately gets lost in translation because of that mentality.

[Yash]

The thing with Take-Two/Rockstar/etc. complaining, is that their primary audience is children. I'm serious. Series like Grand Theft Auto have a high appeal towards younger gamers, and it's generally seen as cool to play M rated games and such.

Why else would they have raised such a fuss about Manhunt 2 being given an AO rating, or going back and tweaking San Andreas to get an M rating? It's easier for a child to get an M rated game than it is to get an AO-rated game - actual adults wouldn't really care.

[Mynd Hed]

I'd say that without any hard numbers to base your statements on, you should be very careful about what you assume regarding their "primary audience." Of course we've all heard anecdotal accounts of young children duping clueless parents into buying (or irresponsible retail clerks into selling) them M-rated games. I'd tend to doubt that those cases make up more than a small minority of total sales, but I don't really know-- and neither do you. So don't try to pass your assumptions off as facts.

As for the emphasis on attaining an M rating rather than an AO, that can be explained by the very simple fact that the majority of the buying public still thinks the Internet is a series of tubes. If it's not carried in retail stores, it won't sell for crap, among adults or children. Your typical American consumer won't ever have heard of it if they don't see it on a Wal-Mart shelf somewhere.