June 20, 2007
Tuesday was a day Strauss Zelnick and his new management team at Take Two Interactive would probably rather forget.Manhunt 2, a title the Zelnick crew inherited from T2's previous administration, came back to bite the publisher early and often throughout the day.
Over morning coffee came news from across the pond that the game was banned in the U.K.
Before lunch, in a story broken by GamePolitics, high-profile watchdog group the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) demanded that Manhunt 2 be rated Adults Only in the North American market, a virtual kiss of death as far as retail sales are concerned.
By dinnertime Take Two 'fessed up that the ESRB had, ironically, already assigned Manhunt 2 an AO rating; the publisher said it was reviewing its options.
So what will "Black Tuesday" cost Take Two in financial terms? GP posed that question to Wedbush-Morgan analyst Michael Pachter, who tracks the video game sector:
I had estimated [Manhunt 2 would generate] around $25 million in revenues for this quarter, plus around $15 million in reorders. It's not clear to me whether Take-Two will:
1) ship the game as is;
2) re-cut the game and try to have the UK ban/US AO rating lifted;
3) cancel the game.
It seems that since most of the cost is "sunk cost" [i.e., not recoverable], alternative 3 is unlikely. The trade-off between 1 and 2 is lower sales with option 1 and higher sales and higher costs (more development and some incremental marketing) for option 2. Without knowing what they plan, I'd say it probably costs around half of the potential revenues, but that's just a guess.
So, given Tuesday's events, what are the chances that we'll ever see a Manhunt 3?
As for impact on the [Manhunt] franchise, it seems that the violence level is sufficiently offensive to warrant a UK ban and a US AO rating. That can't be good for the longevity of the franchise.
Despite the rough times, Take Two stock (TTWO) closed slightly higher on Tuesday, finishing at 20.74.
Comments
I think, as the game stands, at least from reports on it, that the ESRB may well feel justified in giving it an AO rating.
I had my 18th Birthday last week, I dont feel any different...
Sure AO titles have bombed before now, but none of those titles has had the same kind of market interest.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this sell like hotcakes - the whole "they-say-I-shouldn't-have-this-so-I-must" effect.
T2 should suck it up, promote the game as being "so extreme it's AO!" and see where it gets 'em.
I guess since both the BBFC and the ERSB have both raised the ratings from Manhunt (1), the content probably really is worse.
Either that or both have descided independantly that the current polical climate is such that they should raise the rating on similar content.
It won't really be possible to tell which it is, until the game is actually released and we, the great unwashed public, get to see the content.
I'd be curious if they did release two versions, but who knows if they'll sink more money into doing that. I think they'd be more inclined to go with option 2, unless they are able to talk over things with retailers and Nintendo. It is obvious the game won't be on display shelves and may not even be advertised on fliers for local retailers, but even less chance of the game being carried.
So, as I said before, I'm interested in how everything will turn out, especially if they do decide to stick with the AO rating.
is America, a so called free country. They need to release the game the
way it already is or I will not have faith in Rockstar Games anymore. The
people that are trying to stop the game need to mind there own business
and leave the game alone.
The premise of your question is off. There is a bigger difference between the two ratings than the age suggestion alone, just like there is a difference between R and NC-17 films even though both list 17 as their minimum suggested ages.
If you don't understand the difference between M and AO ratings, go to www.esrb.org . If you simply don't understand the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, consider that the 18 year can vote, buy firearms, be drafted, and is held legally accountable for his actions as a adult.
I wish that was an option, that games could be given the same standards as movies, and that in much the same way as I can go to the mall by my house and find 20 commercial non-pornographic unrated movies in 10 minutes I should be able to do the same with commercial non-pornographic unrated games. Unfortunately, retailers refuse to carry unrated or AO rated games so that doesn't happen. I remember buying the unrated version of Team America, it was on the shelf, I didn't even have to go up to the counter and ask for it, and I was 17 at the time and the guy didn't even card me (meanwhile at the age of 19 I'm carded for Resident Evil 4). At the Blockbuster by my house I remember it being far easier to find the unrated version of Old School than the theatrical R-rated version. This is a complete an unfortunate double-standard, perhaps Manhunt 2 should be rated AO by the very definition of the rating (if I were the parent of a teenager I could see myself having a problem with letting him play it) however, if that is the case, it should not come with the ramifications of an AO rating that stand as a complete double-standard to the "equivalent" NC-17 rating of the movie industry, it should be sold in stores and the retailers should take extra procautionary measures to ensure no child is able to buy the game.
"They need to let manhunt 2 come out the way it was already made. This
is America, a so called free country."
They need to let it come out as such. I want to see Take-Two and Rockstar FINALLY go under because they won't be able to sell any game in any major venue.
Also, the US, a Free Country? Don't make me laugh...
NC-17: No one 17 and under admitted.
Yes, it does have terrible wording, but it is literally the same as an AO rating. Minus the whole financial death writ.
Dude... they still have a GTA coming out. They won't die anytime soon.
I wouldn't have much of a problem with the AO rating if retailers just had the guts to carry an AO rated game. So yeah, I agree with you there.
People are forgetting that neither "AO" nor "NC-17" equal "xxx." They're still protected expression, they're not classified as obscene and they can still be distributed anywhere. The issue is with the retailers and this is where the ESA or the IEMA need to step up and muscle them into selling AO or unrated games.
If the ESA and the IEMA took a stance that said, "our members won't distribute their games through outlets that put a blanket ban on AO or unrated titles" then there might be some change because they'd be hitting the stores where it really matters, in the wallets. Or, hell, if we as gamers refused, en masse, to stop shopping at stores that refuse to sell AO or unrated titles you might start to see some effect.
It does say that, but all of the ratings on movies and games are voluntary. There's no law against admitting someone who's under 17 just like there's no law against selling an AO game to a minor.
NC-17 is the kiss of death for movies, too. How many NC-17 titles do you see? Studios would rather give an R rated cut a wide release and then release an "unrated" DVD then even risk an NC-17 rating these days.
And maybe then after make a wussified wally world friendly version for ma and pa to purchase for little Billy.
But I think sold as is without major retail will sell way the hell better than if they cut the balls off it, just to make all the parents who want their kids babysat by everyone but themselves happy. I say dont change this game at all... This could make a groundbreaking statement in gaming. If this rating pushes T2 into changing something, then the rating board will think they can control the limits to all creative freedom that is released. I say release it to all the retailers that still believe in freedom of choice, and watch how all this negative contoversy will be nothing more than a hype machine to get more people than previously expected to seek out a vendor. If T2 stands down then obviously other developers will follow suit, and tiptoe around their ideas that they feel might push the envelope a little too far, and in return the game may not see mass market sales. And in return for all the gamers, alot of watered down games that were too afraid to cross an illusive line.
(My 3 Step Message To T2)....even though their probaly not reading this.
(1) Release it in the true form of its creators vison.
(2) Watch it sell better than previously expected.
(3) Reap the benifits of paving the way for yourselves and other developers, in showing that no one other than their soon to be fanbase can make or break a game.
But when all is said and done, I guess if Nintendo bitches out, then were all fucked.
One last thing that I dont want to get too far into. Is how games obviously dont get the same treatment as movies.
The only way a movie gets 18 and up is for very strong sexual content. And last time I checked Manhunt 2 only has very strong violence. Wich would only permit an R rating for a movie. Wich is 17 and up, the same as Mature. Just like Saw,Hostel,and The hills have eyes series were rated 17 and up for their graphic violence,
so should be any game that poses the same attributes regaurdless of the way its viewed.
A few things. First, the ratings board isn't looking to censor anything, they're looking to establish a consistent set of rating standards. In the US creators don't have to change their content on the whim of the ratings board unless they want to get a different rating, the ratings board has to rate the product and anyone can distribute the product if they so choose.
People need to accept that this game more then likely should be rated AO and instead focus on the retailers who refuse to stock it. The ESRB has every right to rate the game AO for violence - the definition of the AO rating includes a statement that basically says, "we'll rate it AO if it's very violent."
Movies have been rated NC-17 for violence in the past and have been edited to get the R. If I remember correctly even Kill Bill Volume 1 needed to change things to get an R rating.
I have seen NC-17 movies sold at retail chains, I Have not seen AO games sold at retail chains.
Also when did I claim that either had the force of the law behind them?
Also, target, walmart, best buy, circut city ect ect can out last the games industry. Sure they lose game sales, but they could lose alot more if watchdog groups start screaming that they stock "porn games" and "adult entertainment". Even if its not true they stand to lose alot. It wouldn't work if the industry did that. Gamestop might give in since game sales are really all they have, but no one else.
I agree with the suggestion here that perhaps, as a business strategy, Take-Two should release two versions of the game--the watered-down "Wal-Mart" version for retailers that won't carry AO-rated games, and the unrated "the version they wouldn't let you see" version for all other retailers. When they do the same for DVDs, I'd bet dollars to pesos that the "unrated" version outsells the regular version by at least 3 to 1. People love to see/hear what they're not "allowed" to see/hear, which is why many music groups actually profited from the dreaded "Explicit Lyrics" sticker being slapped on their albums.
Speaking of the ongoing free speech debate, TK is right that there's no "prohibition" of speech in any way. Even if the ESRB were to somehow prohibit the game outright, there's no state action that would cause the First Amendment to apply. Retailers are simply refusing to buy material that's rated Adults Only, and there's nothing in the Constitution that can force them to do otherwise. Discuss that as a policy matter all you want, but that's how the First Amendment works--the government needs to be involved in censoring the speech for it to apply.
I was just clarifying for people who didn't know that the rating system is voluntarily enforced.
I would argue the opposite to your second statement. Taking the movie industry as an example because it's most relevant, they have outlasted any number of retail chains. Hell, some of the big box computer stores are already on their way out but the games industry is here to stay.
And I'm not suggesting that they stock "porn games" or "adult entertainment." As far as I'm aware, if a game fails the Miller Test it'll be slapped with an "x" or "xxx" just like a movie. I'm suggesting that the organizations who take as their mandate the defense of the Entertainment Industry and Entertainment Industry Merchants step up to the plate and work to remove this blanket ban of anything with an "AO" or unrated cover.
This shows the problems in a system where distribution channels are monopolized by these huge chains. If Wal-Mart stores allowed local managers more leeway in choosing what to stock rather then enacting a blanket ban this wouldn't be nearly the issue it is. If these stores looked at the submitted media before decided whether to sell it or not then this wouldn't be an issue at all.
I see what you're saying about the lost sales from supporters of the watchdog groups but I do feel that the purchasing power of gamers, en masse, would be as high as the segment of the population that would actively participate in a wathdog group's similar boycott.
No it should not, I think that it should first be sent to ESRB and let them rate it, and then support what ever rating they give it.
In any case, where's option 4) the game will be re-rated and go on to sell a ton more than originally anticipated because of all of the free publicity?
"This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic; in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children."
If you look at the bold bits, a movie can get an NC-17 rating for excessive violence just like a game.
So give it a break; NC-17 and AO do not equal porn!
"I really wish I knew what that extra year soemhow does to make the player more responsible to play these games.
I had my 18th Birthday last week, I dont feel any different… "
you can now be held entirely responsible for your own actions. no more hiding behind mommy's skirt if you mess up. that's the difference.
Personally, I have little interest in the game. I've never played a Take Two/RockStar game. They never held any real interest for me. However, I will defend their right to make games. Making the game is their right. Playing it (or not) is our right, selling it (or not) the retailers. I just hope we don't end up only finding games in speciality stores. That have one way mirrors for windows. And they give us our games in a black bag. That would be a sad day indeed.
@ Silver_Derstin
We're a helluva lot free-er than other countries.
Though not like they'll recover any losses with the upcoming GTA, as Brokenscope suggested.
Its also hypocritical to be behind the ESRB when government legislation wants to set up their own watchdog program and then complain that the ESRB is complete crap the moment they do something you don't agree with. It would be one thing to criticize their actions if they started rating content based upon developers or publishers instead of actual content but this is clearly not the case.
R* pushed the envelope with all their eggs in 1 basket and had no contingency plan in case their violent game doesn't make the grade they want. What they should have done is either go into this with supporting evidence and been ready to defend their material or they should have kept a solid line of communication open with the ESRB so they could have made the necessary changes before the last minute.
Theres a reason T2 is doing rather poorly and its because of mistakes like this. If you rock the boat then you better be ready for when it tips over.
Unless GTA4 ALSO gets a nice AO. Which would not surprise me in the least. And would make me laugh even harder.
That all being said I believe T2 knew it was going to get an AO rating with this game..to think otherwise would of been foolish. So I truely doubt T2 is sitting there thinking "oh my goodness AO??? what will we do". They are perhaps having one last sit down to decide if they want to release this as an AO title or attempt to push it downward, but thats only because AO is generally seen as suicide.
Leaving the game as it is is no option. No retail store will carry the game, and Nintendo will not even allow the game to be published on its consoles.
No console manufacturer will allow an AO game to be published on its console, as part of going through the certification process requires that the game meets its ESRB rating, and it can't be rated AO.
It's no coincidence that with a couple of notable exceptions, most of the games that have been rated AO have been PC games, and that AO is really the kiss of death.
Option #1 is not an option, and that leaves option #2 or option #3.
This is what amounts to industrial censorship, and they were pressured by politicians to give this AO rating.
Down with censorship!
All envelopes get pushed eventually, why wait???
I would be amazed if the control scheme has anything to do with the rating. The ESRB has always rated narrative elements only, and never ever gameplay or control schemes.
It bothers me that this coincidence leads to speculation on the CCFC's influence, because I am wholly convinced that the CCFC had no influence whatsoever.
I'd hate to have anyone thinking the rating system can be bullied, so I'd hope anyone making (or even allowing for the possibility of) such a claim will back it up with something more than just speculation over the coincidental timing.
Why would it get an AO rating? The level of violence in the GTA series really hasn't changed all that much. Really much of the violence is completely avoidable. Not to mention the rather entertaining social commentary the game usually conveys.
@Tom
Also I never said they would stock porn games or XXX games. However watchdog groups could scream that all day long. What could the retailer say in response? "Its not a porn game, its an Adults only game...." oh shi..
After that no one would hear a god damned thing. Facts are lost on the sheep like masses. Imagine this headline "Walmart now sells adult only games" Do you really think that any amount of facts about the AO rating is going to change the fact that the general consensus is that "adult" entertainment is going to be XXX.
What it boils down to is that they need a new rating for games like man hunt. Frankly one that doesn't have societal connotations of sexual imagery.
Frankly a boycott of walmat, bestbuy, target, ect ect ect all the large non game specific retailers would hurt the industry and when the industry finally gave up it would give greater control of game content to the retailers.
I will repeat myself. Until a societal shift occurs or the ratings system is modified the industry is going to have to look have to deal with societal pressures in the united states and abroad. Sorry.
No other AO-rated game has had even REMOTELY the level of anticipation for its release that Manhunt 2 has had - disregarding GTA:SA, of course, because it was M at the time of its release. Because of this, it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell how the market will react to the rating: will it hurt sales because major retailers (likely) won't carry it, or will it sell just as well as (or only slightly worse than) it would have with an M rating? And how can we be sure it won't be carried by retailers? As has been mentioned in another thread, retailers don't have a hard-and-fast policy banning AO games: it's handled on a case-by-case basis. And even if they don't carry it consider this: the effect of the in-store impulse buy versus the carefully-considered purchase is something to be considered, but people can just as easily buy impulsively online. This is 2007, people: buying games online is hardly a rare occurrence.
As for the difference between 17 and 18, I'm siding strongly with Radio Guy. I just turned 18 on Sunday - three days ago - and I feel no different than before. Remember: 18 is essentially just an arbitrary age defined by most governments as the age of adulthood - a necessary one (they have to define it somehow), but an arbitrary one nonetheless. And while I strongly agree that the ESRB has got its age definitions right, they by no means applies perfectly to every single individual. To say that the day one turns 18, one suddenly goes from unable to handle extremely sexual or violent content to being able to handle it (as a few here have been doing) is absurd. And to say that at the same time as saying that it's UP TO PARENTS to know their children well enough to know when they can handle mature content - well that's just plain hypocritical.
Just watch, this whole furor over the rating will be old news in a week, after which everyone who was going to buy Manhunt 2 before the rating was revealed will procede to go and buy it anyway - even those who are, technically, not old enough. There's no reason this game won't make Take Two plenty of money.
"game company can easily revise the game with the help of the esrb to fit within the M rating" It's really not easy at all for a game company. Usually, in order to revise the game it takes months more work and more cash. For a movie to be revised they just send it back to the editor, trim off a few offending frames and call it a day.
@ Brokenscope
When Target demanded that Disney not offer Pirates of the Caribbean II in a downloadable format because it would hurt their sales Disney said to them, and I'm paraphrasing here, "if that's how you're going to act then you don't get any Pirates of the Caribbean II." Target caved immediately because they knew how much money they would lose if they didn't carry that movie. If game producers got together and made a similar threat then the retailers would have to take notice. Gaming is the largest grown entertainment medium on the planet right now and retailers know this.
Hell, Rockstar could probably go to these chains and say, "If you won't carry Manhunt 2 in its current form then we won't let you distribute GTA IV." The only potential hold-out to that threat would be Wal-Mart because they're the only one that's big enough to matter. Everyone else would cave immediately and then Wal-Mart would likely cave because they would lose so much revenue to the other stores.
You're right, the press would run "Wal-Mart now sells Adults Only games" in big letters - but let's not kid ourselves here, it wouldn't be front page news. There would be groups that would scream and cry about this and there would be people who boycott Wal-Mart but they wouldn't have much effect.
A boycott is someone saying, in effect, "trust me, I won't shop there." It's potential lost revenue. Many of the people who "participate" will break ranks when they really need to get something. An industry or a company refusing to let them distribute a product is definite immediate lost revenue and potential future lost revenue. What if you go into Target to buy GTA IV because Rockstar refuses to let Wal-Mart distribute it after they refused to sell Manhunt 2 and find that you actually prefer Target stores to Wal-Mart and switch loyalty? It might not be a huge percentage of the people, but it'll be enough to take notice. Or what if you just happen to go into Target to buy Manhunt 2 and then you notice a nice new grill for summer barbecues and buy it there instead. The challenge for stores is getting consumers inside, once they're inside they'll buy something.
I do agree with you that the "Adult's Only" rating immediately conjures images of bouncy breasts and dirty, sticky sex. The ESRB should work to rephrase the rating.
Although this will likely hurt Take 2 in general sales from impulse buys in retail stores, I'm wondering how the game will do in the coming months. It will be interesting to compare the sales to say, the Postal movie, which is a banned movie (afaik?) and will probably sell like hot cake when it hits dvd, just because of the negative press. How many kids buy games like Manhunt on impulse anyway? Maybe I'm overestimating the game consumer, but I always thought that they were the more informed consumers of the digital entertainment lot.
Time will tell if all this "oh my, an AO rating for a 'normal' game!" press will lead to more sales than the AO rating itself will hurt store sales.
I'd say a majority of the sales after release are impulse sales in the Digital World.
I agree with you on that. Age limits are inherently arbitrary and people mature at different ages and times. Many people will mature very young (pre-teen and early teen years) and some people will never fully mature (i know quite a few of them trust me). Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying we allow all 8/9/10 year olds to drink, watch porn, join the military or smoke. Obviously there are limits esspecially for young children but once you reach your teenage years things become real hazy and basing the ability of someone to do certain things or handle certain things when it comes to age becomes arbitrary (yes i know i use that word alot). I think we should stop focusing so much on age, we are a very ageist society (this includes elderly people to not just the young). Unfortunatly as there is no way to determine maturity or the ability to handle certain things at the bar, voting booth or retail store, we have to use age as a de facto limit. Maybe sometime in the future this will change but for right now there is no other way i can think of. At least in the U.S. minors have strong First Amendment rights, actually it's about the only rights they do have.