backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 125 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Jun 26 at 2:54 PM
AO-rated Manhunt 2 would be unacceptable to Nintendo and Sony

Nintendo tried with the GameCube to shed its image of being a video games system strictly for children by promoting games such as Resident Evil 4. With the widespread success and family appeal of the Wii, Nintendo may be facing another challenge on coming up with the appropriate mix of games for the mature crowd and everyone else.

While Nintendo may be hoping that its developers make mature games for the Wii, it may be getting more than it bargained for with Rockstar Games’ Manhunt 2.

In what could be the game with the most controversy stirred before release, Manhunt 2 is already banned from sale and distribution in the UK, recently also banned in Ireland, and is tentatively rated as AO for adults only by the U.S.-based ESRB.

Although AO-rated games are legally sellable in North America, the approval processes of Nintendo and Sony do not allow such games to appear on its systems. Manhunt 2 is under development for the Wii, PlayStation 2 and PSP, though the game would not be approved for release by Sony or Nintendo.

“Games made for Nintendo systems enjoy a broad variety of styles, genres and ratings. These are some of the reasons our Wii and Nintendo DS systems appeal to such a broad range of people,” read a Nintendo statement to the press. “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.”

Sony Computer Entertainment of America responded to inquiries with a similar response, saying, “Currently it's SCE's policy not to allow the playback of AO rated content on our systems.”

Of the 23 games ever to be given an AO rating by the ESRB, only one has ever appeared on a home console. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, also from Rockstar Games, had its M for mature rating changed to AO following the sexually explicit “Hot Coffee” incident. Copies of the AO rated game were recalled from retailer shelves and replaced with a version of the game without the adults only content.

Even if Sony and Nintendo were to allow the AO version of Manhunt 2 for play on their systems, retailers such as Wal-Mart have a policy of not selling explicit media, which would severely limit the game’s exposure to the buying public.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not in Japan
By SinistarX on 6/21/2007 10:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Sony may be posturing from their moral high horse in the US, but that policy is not in place in Japan where there are several PS2 and PSP titles that would clearly get an AO rating were they to cross the Pacific.




RE: Not in Japan
By gyranthir on 6/21/2007 10:14:46 AM , Rating: 3
More than just several....


RE: Not in Japan
By h0kiez on 6/21/2007 2:03:24 PM , Rating: 4
Am I the only one who wasn't even aware of this game a week ago and now suddenly wants to play it to see what all the hoopla is about?


RE: Not in Japan
By bplewis24 on 6/22/2007 1:29:29 AM , Rating: 3
Welp, you know some folks say there's no such thing as bad press.

Brandon


RE: Not in Japan
By TSS on 6/22/2007 3:54:44 AM , Rating: 3
i'll still remember these bans best when i heard that carmageddon 1 was beeing banned on the news when it came out. i heard my uncle proclaim "now i really wanna play it".

by the way i come bearing grave news from the dutch front: the different goverment coalition partners are all agreeing on a ban, so it probably wont hit the stores even in holland.


RE: Not in Japan
By umerok on 6/25/2007 7:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i'll still remember these bans best when i heard that carmageddon 1 was beeing banned on the news when it came out.


that's the only reason i played postal 2


RE: Not in Japan
By Samus on 6/21/2007 2:49:04 PM , Rating: 4
Reminds me of the first time I took the train into Nagoya City and half the business men were browsing hentai magazines in open public. I'da felt out of place with a newspaper, had I been able to read it anyway.


RE: Not in Japan
By BladeVenom on 6/21/2007 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 1
What about Doki Doki Majo Saiban?


RE: Not in Japan
By darkpaw on 6/21/2007 10:34:08 AM , Rating: 1
Yah, its kinda sad how much censorship exists in this country. Boobies on TV? Oh nos the world is gonna end.

Censorship is bad, m'k.


RE: Not in Japan
By gradoman on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not in Japan
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 1
no edit...

i meant redundant, not redudant.


RE: Not in Japan
By RjBass on 6/21/2007 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
We need breast on your TV's because some of us like them.

Why is this censorship being allowed? I live in the USA, not Communist China. Just because somebody else doesn't like the blood, violence, and sex in a video game or on TV doesn't give them the right to censor me from seeing it.


RE: Not in Japan
By Oregonian2 on 6/21/2007 2:23:35 PM , Rating: 5
I much prefer the boobs than the violence. I say ban the violence and keep the boobs.


RE: Not in Japan
By Xerstead on 6/21/2007 2:52:59 PM , Rating: 5
You have my vote. Boobs are fun, gratuitous violence is not.
Why is the former so taboo and the latter so popular. I've never understood why violence is so accepted/expected in games yet the meer glimpse of a nipple has the censors reaching for the scissors.
GTA: a series of games focussing on violence/prostitution etc which is all ok untill there is a little bit of digitised nudity.
I didn't play the first game but from reading the news reports on MH2 in the media, (biased and inflamitory I know...) I tend to think that a 'game' such as this should not have been made.
I am against most forms of censorship, for adults, but there is a line which should not be crossed. Problem is everybody's idea of where ths line should be drawn is different.


RE: Not in Japan
By artemicion on 6/21/2007 4:36:23 PM , Rating: 5
Those of you complaining that this kind of censorship shouldn't happen in the US because of free speech and all have it all backwards. This is a private company making the decision to censor its content, not the government.
What *would* be #%&-backward is if the government went to Sony and Nintendo and said you MUST have games with boobs on your systems.
Sony and Nintendo are operating (intelligently) in a free market capitalist system: they think that if they keep nudity and excessive violence off their systems, they will sell more systems because they believe the number of people who would refrain from purchasing the console due to explicit content is greater than the number of people who would refrain from purchasing the console due to NOT having explicit content (which, if I may editorialize, is probably correct logic).
Now, theoretically, for all you porn and/or violence lovers, there's nothing stopping somebody from inventing the Pornstation video game console to cater to all of you who are complaining. Heck, the premise of their flagship launch game could be playing as a psychopathic pimp who has to have sex with as many women as possible and subsequently kill and mutilate their bodies and wear their skin as a hat. The reason that it probably isn't going to happen is because, again, in a free market capitalist system, private individuals have come to the conclusion that the demographic of video-game-porn-and-violence-lovers isn't large enough to turn a profit.

So basically what I'm trying to say, is that I find it ironic that all of you are screaming "NOT IN MY COUNTRY - WE BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM" because of a situation where, essentially, a private company exercised their right of freedom of speech and choice (by saying, "we don't want porn and excessive violence on our product"). I mean, just look at how ridiculous your argument is: you're saying you live in a country that believes in liberty, but you're essentially demanding a private company to act in a certain way - GIVE ME ACCESS TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. Does anybody else see the irony?


RE: Not in Japan
By Xerstead on 6/21/2007 5:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a private company making the decision to censor its content, not the government.

In the UK the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) have banned the sale of MH2 in the UK.
Although I understand the logic of having a purely family orientated catalogue, the 'offensive' content wouldn't be on the console. It would be on the discs used in the console. If you don't want adult content don't buy (or your kids) the offending games. Unfortunatly not all parents take propper care of their kids.
I'm not going to start demanding 'Slayer the Hedgehog' And 'Super Mario in Pornoland', but I just dont see how a Nipple is more offensive than a Head-Shot.


RE: Not in Japan
By Oregonian2 on 6/21/2007 5:57:55 PM , Rating: 3
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neither the posting that you followed up to, nor my posting (that he followed up to) say anything of the sort. I (and he) just said that I preferred boobs over violence. Those other issues about governments and the like were just chips on your shoulder.

My preference stands. If you prefer heads being chopped off or people blown up rather than boobs jiggling, that's your choice and I respect it. I just don't agree.

P.S. - As it happens, the U.S. Government does actually censor that which goes on public media such as on TV, although their control is slipping (particularly when our President is caught on the air using strong language that the government previously tried to censor from on air usage). A previous U.S. attorney General had (as a function of his Government position) effectively banned magazines as tame as Playboy from being sold at convenience stores. That's a form of government censorship. Inch by inch.

P.P.S. - I might point out that here in Oregon, the free speech rights in our state constitution is more free than the national standard used by most all other states (if not all). There are those that want to tighten things down, but so far initiatives to do so have been defeated soundly. Hopefully it'll stay that way.


RE: Not in Japan
By NT78stonewobble on 6/22/2007 5:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, so your fine about boobies how about some cocks for the ladies to look at on cable?


RE: Not in Japan
By Oregonian2 on 6/22/2007 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
My wife would vote for that, which is fine with me.

:-)


RE: Not in Japan
By Magius on 6/24/2007 8:00:54 AM , Rating: 3
They were talking about boobs, the equal thing would be men without shirts on TV. Wait a second, we get that already.

How come man nipples are fine and women nipples are not? I have seen guys on TV with breasts as big as a woman's and that's ok on TV? WHY, oh why?

Seriously, I even saw once a mom complain to a store owner that there was a bikini-clad lady in her son's comic book. A modest bikini I might add! That is how uptight some people in USA are...

Yet the same people tune in every night for CSI or Law and Order to get their dose of violence.

BTW, nudity is not equal, nor it ever be equal, to porn. Some of the posters here need to understand there is a big difference between the two.


RE: Not in Japan
By Oregonian2 on 6/26/2007 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
There also is a big difference between something being pornographic and being obscene. Porn is basically something just heavily erotic.

Obscenity is something that one just knows when one sees it (and IMO likely is either violence related or is a political speech).


RE: Not in Japan
By SmokeRngs on 6/22/2007 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My preference stands. If you prefer heads being chopped off or people blown up rather than boobs jiggling, that's your choice and I respect it. I just don't agree.


Since I've seen the question asked that's in regards to this comment, I'll answer it. The question being: "Why would people prefer violence in video games to nudity?"

My answer is not meant to represent many other people, although I'm sure there are many whom would agree with me. The simple fact is that I can do violent things in video games and not get thrown in prison or killed for it. I do not have to worry about any type of trouble from doing this as I would in real life. In real life, with the exception of STDs, pregnancy and a few other issues, sex and nudity has fewer consequences and I'm willing to risk those consequences.

It's not that difficult to go out and find a woman that will sleep with you (without paying for it). I find that a hell of a lot more enjoyable than watching some nudity on a computer monitor, TV or magazine. Then again, I'm single so I have that option. For some of you married guys, I guess nudity on the screen or in print might be the only option. ;)

Anyway, that's my reasoning. Murder, pillaging and mayhem in a video game is a hell of a lot better than trying to perform the same acts in real life. I have no desire to murder anyone (well, at least very often) or perform cruel acts on actual people. I do have the desire to have sex with the opposite sex and enjoy the physical company of said person. A game will not give me any satisfaction in regards to sex.


RE: Not in Japan
By Oregonian2 on 6/22/2007 1:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Good thoughtful response, thanks!


RE: Not in Japan
By tigz1218 on 6/24/2007 10:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Boobies FTW!


RE: Not in Japan
By darkpaw on 6/21/2007 11:39:14 AM , Rating: 1
My comment was more about how people in America freak out about things that really are not a big deal then any specific content. The whole Janet Jackson thing sent people willing to push the edge running for cover or pay channels. That is a bad thing for society in general.

On American TV is acceptable to show almost any level of wanton violence, but the slightested nudity or a few f-words and you're hit with mega-fines. I shouldn't have to pay for HBO to watch uncensored TV. I damn well wouldn't let him play a game like Man Hunter, but restricting it from even hitting the market is not the way to handle the situation.

If people would actually watch their own kids instead of whining to the government to do it for them, none of this would be an issue at all. As a parent I still hate censorship, its my responsibility to decide what my son can and can't watch, not activists, or politicians, or the FCC.


RE: Not in Japan
By darkpaw on 6/21/2007 11:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sentance at the end of the 2nd paragraph should be at end of the 3rd. Added it during preview into wrong spot. My bad.


RE: Not in Japan
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was looking at PBS the other day, around 11pm/12pm, not really sure, and there was a movie on Watergate on there with plenty of cursing. PBS is like the epitome of Free. Also, if you look at it regularly, you'll see plenty of violence in the reports coming out of Iraq.


RE: Not in Japan
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 1:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
I get that you don't want to pay for that stuff and you do have a right to watch it -- I get it. i know basically all TVs now have parental controls and I agree that parents have to decide as to whether or not they will allow their kids to watch that stuff on tv, but how I see it is like this: there is plenty of it to be had. Who am I to decide for you though, right?

However, my point remains this: there are plenty of other sources and adding nudity and f-bombs to free television is just too much, IMHO. While there are controls in place, as I said earlier, how can you ensure that your kid will not get around them, accidentally view them, or overhear those things?

Also, in reply to adults whining about govt to do it for them, well, kids are just brilliant enough to get around your rules and imposed limitations and end up being exposed to the kinds of things you are banning them from viewing.


RE: Not in Japan
By Lightning III on 6/21/2007 2:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree incuding which one of their friends has the full cable porn boat and whose parents don't care and are at work.

restriction = desire

there's always a way around just ask them


RE: Not in Japan
By Wightout on 6/21/2007 4:21:15 PM , Rating: 3
It all goes back to a basic form of moral responsibility and courtesy. The idea of not swearing around women or children is not a form of censorship it is just plain old courtesy. The reason the govt has to step in is becuase the these stations have lost any form of moral compass.

I find it especially amusing that while violence towards people is ok, if you show any video of people harming animals OMG! WATCH OUT!! YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LINE!!!


RE: Not in Japan
By Christopher1 on 6/24/2007 6:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your moral compass is not necessarily everyone else's moral compass. Personally, I have no problem with people 'swearing like a sailor' around children and even children swearing.

The only people who do are people who think that children are 'innocent' and should not be angered, have strong opinions on subjects that affect them, etc. and express those opinions in non-negotiable terms.

Also, courtesy is for lackwits and idiots. The most successful people in the world are the people who do NOT have any moral compass or a very small moral compass that points to most things being okay or courtesy towards others, like Donald Trump.


RE: Not in Japan
By rushfan2006 on 6/21/2007 3:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
In the USA , which I am proud to live still, we just have things backwardsass ;).

Like many have said its kind of odd how accepted violence is and even lack of respect to your fellow human being (let alone the thought of respecting law enforcement, your elders, your parents, etc.). But we shy away from nudity. That is such an odd thing when I think about it.

Now this all said you may think I agree with those saying nudity should be on public tv....I do not.

As far as nudity on TV goes right now - the current model is fine -- which is severely limited on public TV but allowed on pay TV.

This is the model that should be kept.

I think its funny in any debate like this that people get so mad because "why should I suffer or have to pay extra" just because of XYZ reason...

Why do I think its funny...because that stance is hypocritical at its core and most people don't even realize it.

You want nudity on reg TV - and how is it fair that you can't watch it just because others don't want to see that stuff?

Well isn't the reverse true...what makes your want FOR something greater than ones AGAINST? ;)

I just think like the folks screaming jokes about piracy not being a huge issue or DRM....its the same damn thing

Folks are using such arguments to hide their real and true motivation....they want something for nothing.

That's all it comes down too..but no one will admit it because greed and selfishness doesn't have the attention getting power as making it sound like some stance as freedom or personal right.


RE: Not in Japan
By NT78stonewobble on 6/22/2007 6:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
One could say the same about parents not wanting to learn their children to tackle the accidental nudity or violence they might encounter.

They don't wanna have the "talk" and thus its easier to just outlaw it.


RE: Not in Japan
By Polynikes on 6/21/2007 1:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
We don't want breasts on TV because we NEED to see them there, we just see no reason for them NOT to be there. Children in Europe see them in soap ads with no ill effects.


RE: Not in Japan
By pertsa on 6/22/2007 7:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not only do children here in Europe see boobs on TV, they actually suck the boobs of their mommy.


RE: Not in Japan
By feelingshorter on 6/21/2007 1:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
Japan is such a different culture though. There is 5x (actually statistics) the violence on TV as compared to the US whereas the crime rate, all across the board, is 1/2 of ours. Plus, people in Japan don't watch TV as much. I say that because its known that they spend more time singing karaoke than watching TV!

As for Rock Star, they really need to invent something new. Their games such as GTA and how Manhunt is running out of gas. A company needs to differentiate. They keep releasing the same type of games where you hack and slash. Where's the innovation? They can do more than just making it realistic and more bloody, etc.


RE: Not in Japan
By poohbear on 6/21/2007 2:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
lol dude i live and work in japan, they watch plenty of TV here. u think after a hard day of work they all hit the karaoke bars?


RE: Not in Japan
By h0kiez on 6/21/2007 2:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the Ping Pong game?


RE: Not in Japan
By Zoomer on 6/21/2007 10:41:47 AM , Rating: 3
Well, there are no crazy lobbyists in Japan that make a big fuss over absolutely nothing either.

Hot coffee == AO? That's just stupid. Just look at some of these PG or NC16 movies out there.


RE: Not in Japan
By MDE on 6/21/2007 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 1
Hot Coffee was even stupider than most people think because there was no way to get at the "AO" content in the console versions, and the PC version needed a third-party (probably unauthorized) patch to view it. Idiotic things like this are part of the reason the world tends to view the US as backwards and stupid.


RE: Not in Japan
By Hoser McMoose on 6/22/2007 3:36:42 PM , Rating: 3
The whole 'Hot Coffee' thing was one of those cases that is just SO excruciatingly ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone couldn't laugh in the faces of those complaining about it. The people who were all worried about this MUST have the IQ of a doorknob.

If you look around the net there are some videos out there showing exactly what these "sex" scenes were, and it's TOTALLY laughable! This was the extreme of cheaply done cartoon sex!

So, you start with a game that's rated for 17+ y/o people due, among other things, to "Strong Sexual Content" (listed right on the box) for which a 3rd party, unauthorized bit of software was available that allowed some goofy sex scenes, clearly added as a joke by the developers before being cut by editors, and people yell and complain, demanding that the rating be changed from 17+ to 18+! Yeah, we all know that those 17 year olds are going to be absolutely traumatized by seeing cartoon sex!

The only thing holding back my laughter is that the outrage against this game was a sad reminder of just how many idiots there are in the world!


RE: Not in Japan
By Lightning III on 6/21/2007 2:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have to go with sisnistar on this not only do they have buxom animie babes ( always with d cup's and blonde hair)doing a strriptease when reaching goals on their arcade games but somtimes it's actual video clips

and if you go to a magazine rack and look they have an unhealthy facination with underage girls in catholic school girl uniforms

their big thing is

it takes pubic hair to be porn in thier eye's boobs or age don't seem to matter

so they shave it or airbrush it out slap a 2 sizes to small ultra sheer white cotton
add a little moisture to get ultra translucent and boom

anyway lets just say I had to lift my chin off my chest and in the US they might be up on pedophilia charges


RE: Not in Japan
By Lightning III on 6/21/2007 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 3
ooh and has anybody played call of duty on the xbox and the pc

way more graphic on the pc

especially head shots


Only in America
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/21/2007 11:29:49 AM , Rating: 1
Can we preach the safety of censoring everything and rounding out all the edges so that we can live safe and happy lives, yet we are one of the most war mongering, hate spreading and ignorant nations in the world. As someone before mentioned, look at the Japanese. They have animated cartoons for kids that have more violence and sex in them then some of our rated R movies, and yet they seem to be doing just fine as a country and haven't wiped themselves off the map yet. The problem I feel we have in America is lobbyists, who ever has the money to hound the senators and congress win. Unfortunately we also were a country founded on freedom of religion and although I have nothing against anyone who worships whatever they wish to, I do feel we would be better without all the zealots who think their beliefs are the only ones that should be followed and hound everyone and everything thing until they get their way. Just my 2 cents, let teh down rating/flaming begin.




RE: Only in America
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Guy, art books, anatomy books, books in general have plenty of effing cursing in 'em. Go read one, jeez!!

Posts like this make me laugh cause hey, if you *stay up*, late at night, you will see plenty of violent shit on tv -- even on PBS. So yes, we are censored, but to at least give kids a chance to grow up and mature a bit -- ALTHOUGH, they could go read a book and find all this stuff IN books.

Different culture, dude. Have you read about what kids over there have done? It's not like they are little angels either! They have issues with kids killing kids! You really upset me with that post.


RE: Only in America
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
Should have read as: anatomy books, art books have nudity, others have plenty of cursing; books in general have plenty of stuff in 'em.


RE: Only in America
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/21/2007 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 1
First, let me start off by playing the worlds saddest song on the worlds smallest violin for a very brief period of time for you... done.

Now, in response to your post, no one needs to "stay up" late to watch anything that they want to see. Go on the internet and you can find videos of kids fighting, sex, violence, drugs and all sorts of crap. And not from Japan either, kids here in America. So don't give me that BS about them having kids killing kids over there when we have the same crap going on here in our own backyard. And I am not sure where you grew up, but by the time I hit middle school I was already too familiar with all this stuff, and not because of video games, but through other kids that were MY age in MY school. So I don't want to hear your bs about letting them "mature" a bit, because all kids will eventually be privy to it, at the absolute latest, by the time they hit high school.

Now don't get me wrong, i am not saying go buy the AO rated games for your kids, what I am saying is that I, a 25 year old male who works full time, pays his taxes and lives according to the law of the land, should have a right to play these video games if I want to.


RE: Only in America
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/21/2007 4:05:27 PM , Rating: 1
First, let me start off by playing the worlds saddest song on the worlds smallest violin for a very brief period of time for you... done.

Now, in response to your post, no one needs to "stay up" late to watch anything that they want to see. Go on the internet and you can find videos of kids fighting, sex, violence, drugs and all sorts of crap. And not from Japan either, kids here in America. So don't give me that BS about them having kids killing kids over there when we have the same crap going on here in our own backyard. And I am not sure where you grew up, but by the time I hit middle school I was already too familiar with all this stuff, and not because of video games, but through other kids that were MY age in MY school. So I don't want to hear your bs about letting them "mature" a bit, because all kids will eventually be privy to it, at the absolute latest, by the time they hit high school.

Now don't get me wrong, i am not saying go buy the AO rated games for your kids, what I am saying is that I, a 25 year old male who works full time, pays his taxes and lives according to the law of the land, should have a right to play these video games if I want to.


RE: Only in America
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/21/2007 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Darn that double click.


RE: Only in America
By gradoman on 6/22/2007 12:11:55 AM , Rating: 2
Then, we agree on that issue of violence. My point still remains: this stuff is available all over. you and me both know it. what we were talking about originally was the availability of this stuff on tv. not the video games that this article is about. i have no problem with you buying those games or the availability since, most times, kids can't purchase them. although, there is always a friend that just happens to have access to all those things that you're trying to keep away.

kids all over have issues with violence, i never said that it's only in japan, i was simply pointing out that they ALSO have issues with violence since you said that they haven't killed each other off completely and have more of what we consider "bad" on tv.

what i'm telling is this: it's everywhere. we don't really need more of it.

once again, you don't need to stay up to see anything vulgar, violent, whatever. and i don't quite think you got me on that -- i was talking about the television, not the computer -- the last thing we need is more of it on tv as well as the web, games, books, etc.


RE: Only in America
By garethcoker on 6/21/2007 9:28:21 PM , Rating: 3
"They have issues with kids killing kids!"

Umm.... it's not just in Japan..... I live here (Japan) and work in a boys high school, and whilst there are certainly problems - Japan is definitely not the only place where kids kill other kids. The real problem here is suicide (800 school students last year.)

You'll also find that different stuff is censored in different countries. I don't need to mention the infamous pixellization on porn here in Japan.

Anyway, what people in one country might find acceptable, people in another country might not. Every country has a different culture. As for the censorship issue, I would like Manhunt 2 to be released, mainly because it's someone's work!! Not releasing it has given it a notoriety that will make it want to be owned by more people.

I have to admit, I was slightly concerned by the Wii version though!!


Rockstar in trouble?
By OblivionMage on 6/21/2007 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
If microsoft doesn't allow AO games, and Sony and Nintendo don't want it, and considering AO games are not sold at most places, doesn't this take a HUGE profit margin away from Rockstar? Like isn't this thier big new game that was supposed to do really well, but if it can only be released on the PC...

I dunno, too caught up with the Halo 3 ARG to really think about anything else




RE: Rockstar in trouble?
By darkpaw on 6/21/2007 10:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
Getting an AO rating is as limiting as getting a NC17 rating for a movie. I'm sure they'll change whatever they have to in the game to change the rating.

The ratings systems in general are so fucked up in this country though. I highly recommend seeing "This Film is Not Yet Rated"


RE: Rockstar in trouble?
By darkpaw on 6/21/2007 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
Hm, don't know why this got downrated. I definately don't advocate them changing the game at all. Its not even my kind of game, but I hate censorship in general. Due to the policies in place by the system manufacters and software dealers Rockstar will change the game if they want to sell it otherwise they won't be able to sell it at all.


RE: Rockstar in trouble?
By Zoomer on 6/21/2007 10:42:59 AM , Rating: 3
Develop it for the PC then. Long live open systems.


RE: Rockstar in trouble?
By Samus on 6/21/2007 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
That's the danger of the biz. It's risky to make games like those that Rockstar makes. They are by far the most controvercial authors of software since id software (these days, id content is the norm)


Nooooo!
By boobot on 6/21/2007 9:55:09 AM , Rating: 1
Awe man!




RE: Nooooo!
By jay401 on 6/21/2007 10:14:04 AM , Rating: 4
You wanted the expression "aww" not the word "awe".


RE: Nooooo!
By SilthDraeth on 6/21/2007 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
I concur. I was wanting this game to come out on Wii, to fulfill some of my morbid fantasies that I don't want to do in real life, because they would cause real pain and suffering, and I am a nice guy.


RE: Nooooo!
By CascadingDarkness on 6/22/2007 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Similar here. No problem doing awful things in a game because I know it's fake. Actually even thinking of doing the same things to someone in real life would make me physically sick. I'm not a bad guy, but unless I'm missing the point I'm pretty sure that's the reason games like this exist, so people can get their kicks without hurting anyone.


Breath of fresh air.
By jay401 on 6/21/2007 10:13:15 AM , Rating: 3
Good news, although one must admit the concept of using the wii baton to club someone over the head would be a rather natural fit. ;)




RE: Breath of fresh air.
By Malhavoc on 6/21/2007 10:20:04 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe they foresaw the headlines, "3 people arrested for mercilessly beating an elderly man with a game console controller!".


By adam92682 on 6/21/2007 11:17:51 AM , Rating: 5
you could make a really good porn game with the wii controller or DS touch screen




Ao game
By dagamer34 on 6/21/2007 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 3
It's not as if Rockstart really WANTED Manhunt 2 to be an AO game. I think they've already learned from GTA:SA what an AO rating means and they thought they could get away with an M label.

For those thinking censorship, no console manufacturer wants to be at the brunt of a hellstorm attack from senators who are against video game violence. As much as I'm for free speech, all console manufacturers want to prove that the rating systems do work (and that they have limits), otherwise we all KNOW this game will be in the news a few months from now as motivation for some silly attack in the news.




By Chris Peredun on 6/21/2007 11:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
Rockstar always seems to be looking for ways to push the envelope. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they pull the wraps off of a PC version of Manhunt 2, with an option for digital delivery to circumvent the retailer blacklist.




tricky
By jonnybnimble on 6/21/2007 11:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno about this one... maybe this game just takes violence too far. But really in Zelda you're slashing a sword... sure it's not humans you kill in it, but it's the same type of thing at a smaller level.

Wii is set up for this kind of thing. I personally can't wait for a good pirate game, but then again you're KILLING with a sword.

I dunno.... so how can they simple it to a better rating???? Change all the weapons to somthing more friendly or the colour of blood perhaps to another colour.... maybe toss Bin Laden in the game... I dunno.. this is just messed




By elpresidente2075 on 6/21/2007 7:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where's the machine gun on my Big-Wheel? They should stop censoring automatic weapons on toys just because some "child" might be exposed to it. Come on! I'm certainly mature enough to handle a .50 cal. Browning! Just label it "Adults-Only" and card everyone when they want to buy it! ...

The preceding has been a slight satire on this whole discussion. Thank you.




Nipples
By Squidward on 6/22/2007 8:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I'm having with all this is that video games are still considered by the masses to be a kids genre. The reality is that most gamers are above 18 years of age and have probably seen more porn than is good for their young developing eyes. However, just the slightest hint of nudity in a game sends people and congressmen foaming at the mouth for censorship, but blowing someones brains out like a ripe pumpkin is perfectly acceptable. My DVD player doesn't discern the difference if I put in Chrnoicles of Narnia or The Rise of the Silver Squirters, why should games be so harshly enforced? Games are not just for kids anymore! Oddly enough I would have thought the UK would have been cool with a bit of adult content in a game, apparently not.




Manhunt could become popular
By Nik00117 on 6/21/2007 4:43:31 PM , Rating: 1
Like another poster said, just a week ago he had no idea there was even such a thing as Manhunt 2, I was in the same boat. I never even knew there was a manhunt 1, well I did I read about it in a article but it was just a list of violent video games nothing speacil.

But now all this talk of this game, actually makes me considergoing out and buying the game, I mean i'm nearly 18, my parents don't mind etc so the rating isn't even an issue for me.

This is just a example of how any publicity is a good thing weather good or not, for if this article and the one I read a week ago were never written/published i'd of no interest in the game itself and would of given 2 shits less about it.

Rockstar is very good at it, I promise you the reason why GTA III, VC, and SA were so succesful is because they were so conterverisl and so many poeple went aganist it.

A lot of those parents rights orgs and stuff need to understand, sometimes it best to leave a issue be, and not make a bigger issue out of it.




Publicity Stunt?
By hubajube on 6/21/2007 5:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
Could this all just be a stunt to get media and consumer attention for their latest and greatest? Get the AO rating, get everyone all riled up, back off the violence to a M rating, then sell a shitload of games.

Nah, it couldn't be that.




Did Anyone Play
By Vanilla Thunder on 6/22/2007 3:10:57 PM , Rating: 1
the original Manhunt? That game held my attention for about 10 minutes. It was a piece of shit, and I wish I had the $3.15 that I paid to rent it refunded. Senseless violence can make a good game better, but it doesn't make a game on it's own.

Vanilla




Bad choice for Sony
By mdogs444 on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bad choice for Sony
By GDstew4 on 6/21/2007 10:01:32 AM , Rating: 3
"Manhunt 2 is under development for the Wii, PlayStation 2 and PSP"


Microsoft ftw.
By thebrown13 on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft ftw.
By thebrown13 on 6/21/2007 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm dumb, Microsoft also states that they don't allow AO games on their system. Lame.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By bysmitty on 6/21/2007 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 3
Microsoft also has the no AO games rule.

Personally, I want to see MORE AO games.

...bysmitty


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By gradoman on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft ftw.
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2007 11:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind Adults Only game if it was given that rating for a reason other than just being a sex game. I don't mind gratuitous violence, but I want a point to it. Manhunt doesn't interest me. But a real game that just had a lot of gore to the point where it got an AO rating, thats fine. I was honestly surprised by Gear of War and the level of gore in that game. I mean grenades blow bodies apart, if you shoot someone in the head with a sniper rifle, their head explodes and shows the brain stem, etc. Was quite awesome.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By novacthall on 6/21/2007 10:15:12 AM , Rating: 5
GameSpot reports:
quote:
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.

source: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6172830.html?action=c...

AO games are released from time to time, but have yet to find their way onto home consoles. The major sales limitation placed on AO-rated games is that most major retailers flat out refuse to stock them on the shelves, forcing publishers of those games to employ less conventional distribution methods, greatly limiting sales potential. For what it's worth, an M-rated game still finds its way to Walmart, EB, and GameStop and even with sales restrictions, can still find its way to the target market.

Regarding censorship, these companies are entitled to censor the content on their consoles. When was the last time you downloaded a snuff film off Xbox Live?


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Spivonious on 6/21/2007 10:17:26 AM , Rating: 1
Umm...last I checked if I make something that runs software, I have the right to decide which software runs on it.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Talcite on 6/21/2007 10:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
No that's not true. You can build a computer but running software to infect other PCs wouldn't be legal. Running that PC as an Email spam server would be treading on the border of illegal as well.

I for one am glad that the consoles have banned AO rated titles. You can have a quality game without burning someone alive in HD. The excessive violence just screams "poor quality" to me. If you have to resort to putting excessive violence in to sell your game, then you have bigger problems than just rating issues.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By GoatMonkey on 6/21/2007 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
They could always release it for PC. No restrictions there on this type of software.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/21/2007 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, I am pretty sure he didnt mean setting up a computer to run a zombie spam network, that is just you comparing apples to oranges which doesnt work. He meant that if an individual bought a $400 xbox 360 or a $600 PS3 then that person should have a right to play whatever they want on it. We bought it, we own it, the companies are not giving us a share of the profits for buying their items, so why cant I play this game on MY system at MY house.

And as far as a poor quality game due to excessive violence, well that sounds a lot like your opinion, you don't like it then don't buy it. That is the problem with the world today is that everyone feels their opinion is the one that matters, whatever happened to common sense. Its a video game, not a substitute for life, not a role model for life, its a game. If I want to beat the snot out of some innocent bystander in a video game just because, then I will. I won't imitate that in life and anyone who says "well I saw it in a game so I thought I could" should be shot on the spot, kind of like throwing chlorine in the gene pool to keep the muck out.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By gradoman on 6/21/2007 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just violence. It's the nudity. Most of these games are basically porn/hentai. What is the redeeming value? Why not get it for free on the 'net? There are plenty of Flash-based games that are very high quality, out there for free. That's very basic point. The internet, here in the US, allows us to see porn for free if you just search. If you can understand how to turn off SafeSearch on Google, I'm sure you probably have seen porn on there. So, who are these videogames marketed to? I'm not sure exactly who buys these types of games, but the market must be miniscule since there are OTHER ways of getting these types of games and products for free. Those that contain violence are PLENTIFUL at Mature rating.

My question to those that go beyond Mature rating is: why can't you tell a decent story without all those "additions"?

And to you: are you the one buying those brain dead games? There are really only a couple decent AO games....


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Christopher1 on 6/24/2007 6:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's not about the story always, it's about ADDING to the story and adding that 'shock value' which is harder and harder to it every single year because people are becoming more and more jaded/worldly (pick your word!).

Also, there are NOT only a couple of decent AO games. In AMERICA, there are only a couple of decent AO games made in America. When you go overseas on sites like DLSite and Torahama, and are able to read Japanese..... the number of AO titles and games with good stories increases EXPONENTIALLY.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By dubldwn on 6/21/2007 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
Dear Mom,

Today, while I was at work, I completely agreed with Bionic Crack Monk regarding the ability to play adult content on game consoles, to electronically beat innocent bystanders, and to chlorinate the gene pool.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By sefsefsefsef on 6/21/2007 10:37:12 AM , Rating: 3
Private companies can do just about whatever they want. If they choose to not sell you an AO game, or to have internal policies that they don't allow such games on their systems, that's their prerogative. You have no legal claim to force them to sell you explicit content.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Christopher1 on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft ftw.
By INeedCache on 6/21/2007 10:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
Don't be ridiculous. You cannot make any argument that your First Amendment rights are being violated because Sony or Nintendo or whomever does not wish to produce and sell anything that gets an AO rating. Any manufacturer has the right to be their own moral compass, and they could not be forced to produce or sell something they deem immoral or improper. If Sony, or anyone else, doesn't wish to continue to produce and sell a game that gets rated AO, they have that right, and there is nothing you or I will do about it. When was the last time you saw a magazine shop forced to sell pornographic material? Or a record store forced to sell music that contains explicit lyrics?


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:16:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
who gives these companies the right to censor games?
The fact they built the console gives them the right to censor anything put on it.

I don't like it either but its very clear they are within their rights. If you dont like their policy-- buy a different console.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By BMFPitt on 6/21/2007 11:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand this policy. Modern consoles have built-in parental controls, so there is no "Won't someone think of the children?" argument. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy or play these games, and I don't see what a console has to gain by censoring third party titles.

And for the record the "Hot Coffee" thing was absurd, because whether it was on the disc or not you still couldn't get to it without modifying the game itself. If that is the standard, all games must be rated AO because you can always modify the graphics/models to be porn.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
The argument is "image". Let's say someone started making a game with XXX sex clips in it for, say, the GameCube. Do you not see how that would hurt the console's image and lead to reduced sales from their core market, even if no 8 year old ever saw one of those games?


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By BMFPitt on 6/21/2007 12:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that it's third party software, so it should have no effect on the console's image. Furthermore, I would use it to highlight the fact that it can be easily blocked.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Tmansport on 6/21/2007 2:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
The gamecube was known as the "kiddie" console because most of the games were kids games rated E. You don't think the opposite would be true if there were several AO rated games on the console? This is especially true of the wii, which is largely being bought for the casual gamers and the younger demographic.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Christopher1 on 6/21/2007 4:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't. That would not hurt the consoles image at all, just like the sexual games for the PC do not hurt the computer markets image.

You are blatantly assuming that people would automatically be against a console because it allows A/O games. Personally, most people don't care, and most people who I have ASKED don't care as well, especially people like me who play adult sexual games on computers, as well as games like Pacman, Spyro and others on computers and consoles.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Parhel on 6/21/2007 5:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I would not buy a console if I knew that this game was available for it. I've played Grand Theft Auto, and it offended me enough that I would feel very uncomfortable supporting that business in any way, even indirectly.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By sscilli on 6/21/2007 6:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand that consoles and games are entirely different things? Nintendo did not make this game, Rockstar(completely different companny) designed it for multiple platforms. If you don't like the game fine, but would you not buy a computer because this game is available for it? This censorship is stupid. If parents weren't so god damn lazy they'd learn to not buy their children adult content. That is all it comes down to because adults should be able to make their own decisions on this type of content(and not make that decision for other adults as well!)


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By joemoedee on 6/21/2007 7:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
By that logic you would not own:

A computer, there's porn on that....

A telephone, wow, phone sex lines. Can't have that....

A TV, A VCR, a DVD player, fruit, whipped cream, stuffed animals, pitching wedges, hand cuffs, whatever... Can't have any of those...

Just because a device or item can be used for a "bad" thing (Depending on your view or personal values) does not make it a bad device.

If someone to make an AO game, and the market allows for it, great. If someone wants to pay for it and play it, great. If you don't want to play it, don't buy it.

The "moral policing" that we as adults have to put up with is ridiculous, with no apparent end in sight.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Parhel on 6/21/2007 7:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's not at all what I said. Any manufacturer of a console that offers this game will profit directly from the sale of each copy. That's not at all similar to the business model of a personal computer, a phone line, or any of your other examples. Microsoft or Intel aren't in the pornography business, nor are apple orchards.

I didn't say I wouldn't purchase anything that could possibly be used for a "bad" purpose. I said that I would not contribute, even indirectly, to supporting a company that intentionally and knowingly profits from this type of content.

I like video games. But, the capability, in Grand Theft Auto, to exchange money for sexual gratification with a prostitute to regain health, and then murder her to get that money back crossed a line for me. I don't find that amusing at all. I don't care what you call it, censorship of that kind of content is just common sense.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By joemoedee on 6/22/2007 10:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the phone company gets paid by the use of the phone, so they profit because of the phone sex industry.

On my cable, I have a bevy of adult material that I can purchase right from the comfort of my couch. They make a profit on this, so again, that proves my point.

Many movie companies put out the range of the G rated family cartoon to very graphic "adult" material. By buying a ticket/dvd/whatever of their G movie, you are supporting the company as a whole. So with your current logic, you would never buy 90% of the media out there. A company that may put out material that you don't deem suitable for yourself, and you have the freedom to choose what you want to watch or consume.

Given, the other examples are far fetched, but the idea of any censorship imposed is not very "american". I like to have the ability to make the decision to watch whatever I want to. Because I have said ability, do I only watch adult movies? No. Do I enjoy having the freedom to make that decision, yes.

If you don't want to play GTA, Manhunt, whatever. Don't.

If you don't want to listen to "shock jocks" on the radio. Don't.

If you don't want to watch "adult" material.. Don't.

But please don't limit me based upon what you personally deem suitable for yourself.

The argument is always "we have to protect the kids". No, the parents have to protect their kids. Why should my rights be compromised because some parent is too damn lazy to pay attention to what their child does?


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 6:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
> just like the sexual games for the PC do not hurt the computer markets image...

Sex games for the PC are a tiny fraction of the total software market. And "the PC" isn't a single product anyway, its made by thousands of different companies. No real image.

A product made and controlled by a single company has an image, whether you like it or not. And if a large number of people are using a particular console to play sex games, it WILL get that image. And its sales will be affected. When someone starts using "Barbie" dolls in sex plays, Mattel sues. Why? Because it hurts their product image.

You may not agree with their assessment. But they own the product, and they control how its used. Don't like it? Vote with your feet and buy something else.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By garethcoker on 6/21/2007 9:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
You should see the number of sex games for the PC in Japan! I believe it is the biggest market for PC gaming here after the MMORPGs (which actually aren't that popular).


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Christopher1 on 6/24/2007 6:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's the biggest market for PC games period in Japan. I was recently talking with someone who lives over in Japan on Hongfire Anime Network...... he e-mail me an article that showed that sexual games make up about 40% of the games that are sold each year in Japan.

I was surprised, though not shocked by that, considering how well Himeyasoft is doing in the United States selling Japanese hentai games over here after importing them.


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By Tmansport on 6/21/2007 6:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
First, the target demographic of the wii and the PC are different. While the PC doesn't exclude younger audiences and casual gamers, it certainately isn't their main audience. Second, how many "sexual" games for the PC have you seen on retail shelves, especially at places like Walmart, Gamestop and BestBuy? These places don't sell AO games. People either get them at specialty shops or via online distribution. A console game relies almost 100% on selling games through mainstream retail stores. If Sally, mother of a 5 year old son, browses through the wii games and sees Manhunt 2 (AO rated) and some "sexual" games for the wii, you don't think she would be negatively influenced? You might not be, but I can assure you that parents and casual gamers would most likely be put off by the content. You also didn't specify the demographic of those people you "ASKED".


RE: Microsoft ftw.
By BMFPitt on 6/21/2007 10:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, how many "sexual" games for the PC have you seen on retail shelves, especially at places like Walmart, Gamestop and BestBuy? These places don't sell AO games. People either get them at specialty shops or via online distribution. A console game relies almost 100% on selling games through mainstream retail stores. If Sally, mother of a 5 year old son, browses through the wii games and sees Manhunt 2 (AO rated) and some "sexual" games for the wii, you don't think she would be negatively influenced?
So who is putting a gun to Best Buy's head saying that it has to stock such games? If they do, it's because they feel it is more likely to generate profit than offend.


How can you question this?
By Builder on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: How can you question this?
By h0kiez on 6/21/2007 10:58:20 AM , Rating: 3
"Parents" are not buying their kids a PS3 anyway. They're buying them a Wii 9 times out of 10. Sony can hardly get the 24-35 yr. old core gamer to buy the PS3.

Also, I'm glad that you know some good parents, but if you think there aren't tens of millions of parents out there that plop their kids down in front of a computer/TV/console for hours on end unsupervised, you're living a sheltered life.


RE: How can you question this?
By BPB on 6/21/2007 11:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but if you think there aren't tens of millions of parents out there that plop their kids down in front of a computer/TV/console for hours on end unsupervised, you're living a sheltered life.
That's not what he said. He said how many more would buy their kids a PC? Big difference. It probably is millions. And big difference between platforms. PC's are a tool that most people consider a necessity. Gaming console are for most people a toy, and they are far from a necessity. Even if you're like me and you use you 360 as a DVR via the Media Center Extender, or watch movies on it, it's still not a necessity.

Put it this way, Nintendo, Sony, and the like are in business to make money, not satisfy people who play AO games. And they are in BIG business. you don't get to be as big as they are by accident. I think that for the most part they know how to make money, it's why there's no more Atari or Sega consoles. And please, I know the PS3 isn't doing so well right now, but I and most other financial people I read think it will do well long term. But even if it doesn't, most of the time Sony does do what's best for the bottom line, and I personally think is one of those times.


RE: How can you question this?
By h0kiez on 6/21/2007 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 1
That's not what he said

The clear implication of what he said was that a great number of parents provide supervision when their children sit at the computer or TV. That may be the case, but I though it was worth pointing out that there are a hell of a lot of parents (arguably the majority) who leave their kids in front of these media unattended for hours all the time.

I think that for the most part they know how to make money

I disagree. Neither of these companies got to be the size they are from selling consoles (or games, accessories). They're both companies that were massively successful at OTHER things, and right now, the next-gen console industry (aside from the Wii) is being subsidized by Sony and Microsoft because they think it will help their OTHER interests. The PS3's biggest asset and liability is Blu-Ray. Sony would be happy to never make a dime off the PS3 if Blu-Ray reaches mass acceptable (because of the PS3) so that they can rake it in with their movie studio division. And MS wants the 360 to become an entertainment hub (read: AT&T U-Verse, Media Center Extender, etc.)

Sony and MS are the only 2 players in the next gen high-def console race...and it's not because they're the best at it. It's because each of them has hundreds of millions that they're willing to throw at it, essentially subsudizing it, for some gain to their company completely unrelated to selling consoles and games at a profit. Nintendo doesn't make hundreds of millions of dollars selling LCD TVs or software products, which is why they realized that they can't compete in the graphical/technical wars and have done something so different.


RE: How can you question this?
By BMFPitt on 6/22/2007 7:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree. Neither of these companies got to be the size they are from selling consoles (or games, accessories). They're both companies that were massively successful at OTHER things, and right now, the next-gen console industry (aside from the Wii) is being subsidized by Sony and Microsoft because they think it will help their OTHER interests.
PS1 and PS2 made a ton of money for Sony. It has been a big piece of their business for the last decade. (It still is, in the PS2's case.)


RE: How can you question this?
By JonnyBlaze on 6/21/2007 11:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
Speak for your own parents. I control what my son plays on his consoles not the stores. I would like the option to buy AO games for the WII or any other console I might own.

I thought Nintendo was trying to get away from the "kids only" games.


RE: How can you question this?
By BPB on 6/21/2007 11:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Speak for your own parents. I control what my son plays on his consoles not the stores. I would like the option to buy AO games for the WII or any other console I might own.
Well, firstly, my parents needn't worry about what I play or do not play. I think they'd consider me a wee bit told old for that worry. Anyway, those parents I know would ask you a simple question, how can you KNOW you control what they play? I don't know how old your kids are, but it doesn't take long before they figure out how to do things when dad's away. If you never did anything like that when you were a kid, then I'm surprised to read you're the type of adult who would like to be able to play AO games, because your first name should be Saint. The point these parents have is they don't want to worry what Johnny or his friends are doing when they're not home. If the console simply won't play AO games, then that's one less thing to worry about.


RE: How can you question this?
By h0kiez on 6/21/2007 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you never did anything like that when you were a kid, then I'm surprised to read you're the type of adult who would like to be able to play AO games

Aw c'mon...you know the repressed type are always the ones that rebel the most ;-)


RE: How can you question this?
By JonnyBlaze on 6/21/2007 5:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
Of course I did things my parents didnt want just like every other kid will do. I dont see the harm in what they consider AO games. Its the parents fault if their kids are that influenced in what they see on tv, in movies and in games.

I have raised my son better to know to not go set someone on fire just because its fun to do in a game.


RE: How can you question this?
By Christopher1 on 6/24/2007 6:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
The problem comes as to what if they figured out how to make the consoles play AO games? Like they got the code or saw Mom or Dad punching the code in to play the higher rating games?

Personally, my cousins played Doom, Hunter: The Reckoning, and other games like those when they were only 8 years old with me watching them.

I just made it VERY clear to them that NOTHING they saw in the games was to be done in real life, and told them that if I saw or heard of them doing anything in the games in real life (or without supervision, such as when I let them practice with my bokken staffs), they would never be allowed to play those games again and I would make sure their parents knew.

I am nowhere close to a strict disciplinarian on many subjects, from sexuality to homework, but violence in real life is one thing that I absolutely hate.


By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/21/2007 4:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
My Wife works in an Elementary school and you would be surprised how many parents let their 2nd graders play GTA.

The stupid thing about this "AO" rating is that "M" means that you have to be over 17, and "AO" means that you have to be over 18. So, basically, the ESRB is saying that this game is not good for 17 year olds. Unless they just don't want it to be released and they are taking advantage of Nintendo and Sony's policies.


RE: How can you question this?
By Mitch101 on 6/21/2007 4:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Porn is available on the PS3 thanks to BlueRay.

Why not have an AO lock enabled by default that a parent can enable/disable via pin code. Not that kids wont figure it out or know its there but the parents wont.


I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By encryptkeeper on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By Duraz0rz on 6/21/2007 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
AO implies extreme/sustained violence and/or nudity/sex/stuff of that nature.

IIRC...at least that makes sense to me.


RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By encryptkeeper on 6/21/2007 4:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
AO implies extreme/sustained violence and/or nudity/sex/stuff of that nature.

You just proved my point. Wasn't there sustained violence in GTA 3? Wasn't there extreme violence in G.o.W? Wasn't there nudity and sex in Conker's Bad Fur Day? This is all stuff that is common place in video games. Rockstar is likely being treated unfairly here: In Bully, the level of violence was reported to us (by people who hadn't even played the game) that it was supposed to be horrendous, incredible acts of depravity. But when the games were reviewed by people who PLAYED them, it was said that the violence level was pretty low. How do we know that's not the case here?


RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By Christopher1 on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By encryptkeeper on 6/21/2007 4:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Bottom line, games rated M should be the highest level available for the ESRB. 17 year olds can be prosecuted like adults, so why can't they purchase the video games they want. I'm really afraid the AO rating will be official in the current version of M2, and either we'll never see it come to any console, or Rockstar will have to make a watered down version of the game. I was looking forward to this one. Isn't there always some game that pushes the envelope? Isn't that what this game is?


RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By Ajax9000 on 6/21/2007 10:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...games rated M should be the highest level available for the ESRB
We have that sort of classification system in Australia (see my comment here http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=7762&... ) and it has drawn a fair bit of criticisim. IMO more sensible would be changing NC17 to (say) NC15 to allow a more sensible split between the categories.


RE: I have an idea for Manhunt 3
By Wightout on 6/21/2007 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between violence towards people and violence towards fictional creatures of any sort. These creature are fictional by nauture, and thus the violence towards them is fictitious.

This game should be banned for the same reasons people would get up in arms if a game was made that involved the brutal unethical beating and harming of dogs or horses or cats or whales or other forms kinds of animals. Sad thing is that people would be more offended and would act out more harshly if the things being killed were animals rather then other human beings.


By Christopher1 on 6/24/2007 6:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that's mainly because there is a thought that the humans who are beaten and harmed in real life, are able to defend themselves better than 'dumb animals' when usually it is actually the opposite.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki