Pachter: Manhunt 2 Troubles Will Cost T2 Millions of $$$
Pachter: Manhunt 2 Troubles Will Cost T2 Millions of $$$
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.
According to my high school I had no Frist Amendment Rights as a minor. They are lucky I didn't sue the shit out of them on numerous occasions. But then again it was in the south so you can't expect much.
They can't release AO games on consoles. Im sure they could release it on the PC as AO but as far as consoles go they will have to get a special thumbs up from either Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. And even if they said OK we'll let it slide then retailers wouldn't sell it so that will criple sales.
My high school had a similar policy, and when taken to court, settled without any real resolution on the issue. Was a fun time. I'm glad I'm far and away from that place now.
"ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." And/or.
Read that again please. This covers Manhunt and most of the first person shooters since Quake and before. Any games labeled as M have been far too lucky in this regard and long before now should major chains of retailers been forced to open their shelves if they wished to make money off the product that adults wanted to buy. This isn't a new problem. Think about it. The Playboy game was AO, yet many retailers who would not sell the game still allowed you to buy the magazine it was based on with ACTUAL nudity on the shelves wrapped with a cover and sealed in plastic.
This is merely another example of flaws in the chain of our media consumption. Rating systems need to be adhered to and leveled so that it is not a bunch of material of the same weight gets treated different. An AO game needs to be an AO game every time. The movie that said AO game is based on needs to be the equivalent rating. Movie theaters, retail chains, all media industries, and the public need to make the steps necessary to balance current and future inconsistencies. If laws exist or are passed somehow in areas to exclude areas from a type of material, fine. If you don't like it, then you stay active, show your support for changing those laws, or move. This will never be agreed upon however. No one will merely back off. The envelope will continue to be pushed forward by all of the industries concerned, the same as those who feel violence goes too far will continue to march or otherwise support people who march for them.
The problem in the case of AO is that you have a lot of informed people. AO is a label, and labels conjure images in the heads of all who come upon them. 'Adults Only' has the implication of adult sexual content, although that is not what the rating definition says. You need to change the perception of the label, not the label in this case. Why? The effort required to change a misconceived notion that a game with AO has sexual content and/or extreme nudity would be fruitful in forcing blatant problems in ratings to be publicly examined. Instead of pushing titles through under the rating radar and making mad cash, the industry would have a vested interest in education as much as sales. The retail industry owes a lot of blame on this as well, since they want to appear innocent and otherwise clear of controversy while at the same time, capitalizing off as many profits as possible. Games represent one of their big money makers, so allowing more games and better educated consumers into their aisles would in the long run benefit more people. More education would allow more delivery channels to be known about and force competition to dictate public policy rather than the opinion of some people against the freedom of choice.
They hated me, tried to get me arrested for my art on a few occasions.
I do think minors should have more freedoms. I know the lack of them caused me a lot of hardship and took almost half of my in school time away from the classroom and into the office reading the text book while being chewed out. No wonder my old state ranks among the worst consistantly.
Now, it's not uncommon to be 27 and still living in your parent's basement. I think we, as a society, are coddling our youth and ourselves too much. Setting unrealistic expectations of society and adults, and placing way too much power and faith in a small group of people to make the majority of the decisions for us, we end up with someone like Bush (who has vetoed more bills than any other president...ever) who does what he wants and in his own "Vision" of the world.
We all use the slippery slope argument to gain credibility for whatever issue we want to forefront, on both sides of the video game debate; so instead of that, I'm going to use a different argument--censorship that effects all of us, not just minors, is a step in the direction of Big Brother; Ironic that the UK would be the first to take that step towards a thoughtless society.
===
I have to admit, I don understand how the BBFC, if it has no political underpinnings can declare something banned. To me, that's like the Baptist Church banning Disney--it inspires a response of, "That's nice, here's a pair of scissors, go run through traffic for a while..." from me. How does the BBFC have any authority over the sale of a game if it's an independently run organization? Does anyone have any insight on this, cause I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but still -- I'd like to know ....
Aye. Can you imagine if Wal-Mart/Blockbuster/Best Buy employees took a picture of every adult who bought/rented their child an M game for an "online wall of shame" or made them sign an agreement that they the parent take full responsibility of the material contained within the box? Would they really buy the game if they signed away the rights to the picture that was taken?
I wouldn't anyone's picture taken, although I would laugh at their stupidity and judgment naturally. Seriously though, a EULA agreement specifically targeting the consumption of the product almost becomes a requirement nowadays for videogame software. I really don't know what will shake parents up enough to stop creating the stories that make headline news and give the games even worse press than they deserve. Maybe an AO game about enforcing the ratings in games? It could have a GTA-like engine but have the main character go around town tracking down parents who dropped the ball to destroy their misused games (maybe spanking them in addition), have meetings with retail giants for future game releases, etc. A sim of sorts into the life of a videogame company but not with the 8-bit graphics of the upcoming "Code Monkeys" animated show on G4. Oh flash masters, you have a new quest.
Strictly speaking the BBFC doesn't answer to the Government itself, and the government has no transparent powers to over-ride or influence a BBFC rating, normally they are actually very tolerant as classification boards go, I will give them that, but this decision is just drawing attention to the game, even the BBFC admit that censorship has that effect.
I believe you are correct in thinking the BBFC does not have the authority to ban a game. The BBFC only "classifies" games, according to the age-appropriateness of their contents.
The BBFC decided that Manhunt 2 does not fit any of its current rating categories, and so it could not rate the game at all.
It's the British government that says a game cannot be sold without a rating, so the it's the government banning the game because the BBFC was unable to give it a rating.
Sort of like over here in the U.S., I think: Some of us are accusing the ESRB of "killing" Manhunt 2 by giving it an "AO" rating, but it might be more accurate to say it's the marketplace, which is unfriendly toward games with "AO" ratings, that's doing the "killing."
I agree with you on the age issue. Things have become nutty to put it mildly. Teenagers are getting prosecuted with felonies in some cases for consensual activities with their significant other barely older than themselves. Not to mention you can smoke your death and die for your country before you can even legally have a drink of alcohol or get into a club serving it in some locations.
Orwellian societies are not the answer, but as you say we get closer every day to that unfortunate reality. That is why I have said before how guilty I feel for being an American right now. Our actions overseas are deplorable and in some cases unforgivable, not to mention the horrors we commit internally.
I wondered how the BBFC could ban it until I read up some. Since the developers voluntarily submitted the game to them, and due to the Video Recordings Act revisions of 1985, they seem to be legally bound to submit to that rating. I imagine based on some of the content, they were not eligible to have the game rated by PEGI and wanted a rating on it to get it sold in certain chains. It is a legal agreement they are entering into to accept the rating for easier sale.
I may be misreading the law but I imagine Rockstar was damned either way in Great Britain due to the limits people there have allowed to be made on personal freedom.
I couldn't agree with the "unfriendly marketplace" more. It is unfortunate for T2 that they couldn't squeeze it through the ESRB rating mill here and other similar agencies abroad due to the sales issue. It makes it more difficult to buy the game for some people, and being lazy, some of those people won't buy the game now. However, the stir over the content will offset the balance of those not buying it as others (such as myself) will strive to buy the game no matter which marketplace we have to traverse. I bought the first Manhunt game used at Blockbuster cheap. It was acceptable but not a great game overall. It was too orderly and I felt chained by the story/gameplay. I don't own a Wii yet but will likely buy the game before I even get the console just because I want to support Rockstar's current and future efforts. Will I get my money's worth? I have no idea.
Does anyone here believe that Rockstar's actions with the whole San Andreas fiasco and Manhunt 2 destroying the gaming industy and causing more censorship to happen?
Are gamers starting to get sick and tired of Rockstar pushing and testing the limits in this type of political climate where games are constantly under the mircoscope?
Should the gaming industry punish Rockstar Games for causing these problems if indeed Rockstar Games has in fact effected the game industry and gamers in general in a such negative way?
I just want to see what the average gamer things about Rockstar games right now.
So is Rockstar Games a postive, neutral or negative effect on the gaming industry?
Just so you know this isn't about censorship. I don't think that government should in any way censor, regulate or restrict games or game companies because of the games they make. First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and all.
This is just what you as the average gamer thinks of Rockstar Games right now?
There have been slippages before. Night Trap is a good example. The controversy of today can be used by those against freedom of expression, of course, but only if the rest of society allows it. If a bunch of close-minded morons are elected that make laws that we hate, what then? It is up to us to stay educated, and make efforts to elect those we believe will accomplish a lot of what we feel must to make society better. Telling the country that adults cannot buy a game they want easily enough to continue to desire it is a brick of many in a wall of censorship. Soon it will be the Internet even more, including postage perhaps on email, and go from there. It is not paranoia but a grim truth.
The same people who fight games today fight the Internet, movies, television, and more issues that we now think we have a choice about. I recall clearly that many stores did not sell the Atari 2600 Mystique games, and those that did had them under the counter. Retailers can decide how they sell the material if they do, same as then, but don't allow the choice to buy out of our hands. Many adults can decide for themselves what is acceptable, as most of us are smarter than the bad parents and delinquents that help frame this issue so negatively (some of the same people AGAINST violence in the first place).
On the whole, I see Rockstar as a positive, though I'm not a big fan of theirs. The only game they've produced that I'm a fan of is Vice City, but in the whole I like to see thresholds challenged. Though I have absolutely no interest in playing Manhunt 2, I like the fact that if I did want to play it, I could.
It might also be a touch unfair to blame Rockstar in this too. The scrutiny was coming, they just happen to be the lightning rod for it. If it weren't them, it would have been someone else. After Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, gaming was going to go one of two ways. It was either going to go back to the days of just being goofy creatures and far off galaxies, or it was going to expand into an ever-deepening array of topics and content. Thankfully, it went in the latter direction.
Thing is, when computers first came out we all marvelled at the fact they could do things we'd never dreamed of, I remember playing Zero-G 3D Pool on my Spectrum etc, somehow this machine that can make fantasy into reality seems to have recently become more and more focussed on making reality into fantasy.
Does anyone here believe that Rockstar’s actions with the whole San Andreas fiasco and Manhunt 2 destroying the gaming industy and causing more censorship to happen?
"Destroying" the game industry? No. Causing greater censorship to happen: absolutely. The industry is engrained now, it's not going anywhere; we just have to be concerned with how the industry moves from this point on ... Do we let over-zealous watchdog groups dictate how our industry moves, or do we, arguably the industry, control how it moves.
Are gamers starting to get sick and tired of Rockstar pushing and testing the limits in this type of political climate where games are constantly under the mircoscope?
Absolutely not. That line needs to be pushed, needs to be challenged at every given opportunity. Otherwise, nothing will ever change if we never approach that line. Similarly, change is never a comfortable experience, and will be painful and discomforting, but we should always be striving for change and innovation. Stagnation is the ultimate sin.
Should the gaming industry punish Rockstar Games for causing these problems if indeed Rockstar Games has in fact effected the game industry and gamers in general in a such negative way?
Absolutely not. Entities like Rockstar and T2 have a place in any industry. We might not all agree with the material that they put out, in the same vein of SCMRPG or VA Tech Rampage, but we have to support their decision and their right to produce and market that kind of material. The industry should be rallying behind Rockstar and granting their support in creating whatever games they want. Ultimately, the buyer will determine whether the game is a success or not. To quote Boondock Saints: "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."
So is Rockstar Games a postive, neutral or negative effect on the gaming industry?
It is a needed part of the game industry--like an arm or a leg on a human, the industry could definitely function without Rockstar/T2 games and the like, but it would not be nearly as effect, not nearly as "complete." I don't think you can ascribe ideas like 'positive, negative, or neutral' to them. They are a needed part of the industry and serve a distinct purpose in the industry in keeping the industry from becoming stagnant, by doing exactly what it is doing.
I typed my reply before I saw your note.
I think we have to include censorship in this choice on whether it is good or bad. This rating is important and will change things, what we will surely find out as time goes on. The game being banned in the England and Ireland alters the societal-media timeline as well. I think Rockstar is doing something that society still wants. If enough of society changes their mind, then let Rockstar stop.
To me, this falls under the acceptable mores associated with media. We are not having live executions thankfully, nor do we televise lions tearing people to shreds (except on the news), so we have no reached the debauchery of Rome IMO. Is there a line of acceptability? Probably. I don't feel we have reached it quite yet so therefore we must plunge forward and continue discussion, study, and most importantly public awareness with respect to videogames. If society as a large pile decides these games disappear, they will vanish in large enough concentration that their continued existence will be experienced by few.
I do not think any true censorship has happened at all yet (in the U.S.), although it is impossible to say what sorts of ideas get cut out of games in order to hit desired ESRB ratings.
Even if Rockstar decides to edit Manhunt 2 and submit it for a new rating, that's still only self-censorship, which is part of any creative process. In this case, we could accuse them of selling out their vision in order to make more money, but I think "to what extent should I sell out" is ultimately a question that every mass-media artist must face.
The only thing I hold against Rockstar in all of this business is their initial reaction to the Hot Coffee mess. Hot Coffee raised an issue no one had considered before ("should unplayable content be considered in the rating process?"), and a new precedent was set in the end ("yes it should").
In the middle, however, I think there would have been a lot less confusion, and a lot less opportunity for anti-game activists to capitalize upon, if Rockstar had come clean from the start, instead of being so (purposefully, it seemed to me) evasive and duplicitous.
But Rockstar is the gaming industry, as much as any other money-making publisher. More than anything else, Rockstar makes games that a lot of people like to play, and that a lot of people respect. I don't see how we could consider than anything but "positive" for the industry.
Something else to look at ...
what a dolt, AO is for sexual content.
I just asked the question because i've heard of many gamers who are incredibly pissed at Rockstar right now and since the whole San Andreas Hot Coffee fiasco.
The fictional characters in the games that gather so much attention (GTA, Manhunt, etc) lack family to offend or emotionally damage. For those who are offended, that is a problem they have to sort out especially if they are themselves responsible for subjecting themselves or their youth to said content. A parent or individual should always retain the right to stop their personal trauma from becoming profits for some company IMO.
"what a dolt, AO is for sexual content". I feel people are only now reading some of the ESRB material in full, despite being gamers.
“ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.”
I am glad some people get this. I applaud ESRB, and wait for retailers to step up and decide what they're going to do.
So yeah, all these bannings have ensured at least one more copy being sold. No idea if it'll have the same affect on other gamers.
"This game is so violent we're going to give it an AO rating"
"Whoa.. why? What happens in it?"
"Not telling you. It's so bad it's been banned in several countries"
"Let me get my credit card"
You forget one major thing. No matter WHEN Rockstar releases anything (except Table Tennis perhaps) they will have to deal with people like JT. They have been targeted, blinking brightly on the radar with all eyes on them. A few eyes are on other franchises but not as much. No matter what rating the title gets, they are going to stir controversy. Their title Bully was a T title and it still received hell from the peanut gallery.
There will never be a good enough time to push the envelope, only time in which court cases and new laws can be passed while everyone is sleeping. These massive media upheavals are the only thing keeping some people awake enough to care that some of their liberties are being taken away from them. Not a rating from the ESRB, but legislation in Florida, New York and elsewhere.
Rockstar is a hammer to the bloody toe Uncle Sam steps on everyday but you somehow carelessly overlook.
My issue is not with the mother being upset, but rather that she waited almost 4 years to decide she was upset, or to go looking for something to be upset about. Look at the release date: Sept. of 2003, It's 2007 now. Four years of that particular image being out in the public view, and she waits until now to make a fuss about it. To me, that says she's not actually upset and just looking for her time in the lime-light. If she was truly upset, it if was something more than a thinly veiled money-grubbing attempt, she would have made it an issue a while ago, not 4years after the release of the game, and 13 years after the actual incident occurred.
The ludicrous-ness of the situation is what bothers me--she waited till it became a mainstream issue to make it an issue.
What really needs to be done is for the ESRB to take a page from the MPAA's book and do away with the AO and replace it with something else.
I saw the difference in dates. What I don't know and therefore cannot comment on is WHEN she found out that the image was used in such a manner. If, as the story linked to states, the picture sits upon a "notice board" inside the game the mother may have been unaware of its presence. If she knew about it for some time and did nothing, I don't think her argument of it doing emotional harm and being "below contempt" accurate. We can't assume she played the game herself or saw the picture herself. We also cannot, from the article linked, know when she approached them about the picture or just decided one day to make a press announcement to which the distributor responded (pulling the game).
If I see other articles clearly describing the full facts of the matter perhaps I can better reply. I won't assume she "waited till it became a mainstream issue" without that data. I instead assumed that the developer did not approach the mother for her blessing to use the photo and at some point she discovered this. These points weren't clear, but siding with the unfortunate death in either event, and replying from there won out over thinking about where the rest of the info was. Death/abuse to children is one of the biggest things that rile my feathers so I sometimes overreact.
Isn't it funny how much perception affects our reality? Many gamers would argue tooth and nail that Manhunt 2 could not be AO, but there is always fine print and silly things such as reading getting in the way. We're so used to M titles so full of that which could have been AO, were it not for the invisible line of where decency lies. Anything that offended enough made it to AO rather than a simpler solution found.
Replacing AO with something else may not help if the perception that "only so much" sex or "only so much" violence can appear in this category or that. Perception of what the rating means, the weight of its label will be what people see not how things really are. For example, I fought with kids in junior high that Samus Aran was in reality a female. Even bringing in proof (Nintendo Power and later GameBoy game manuals) meant nothing because that is what the people wished to believe. Just like those who believe without any unbiased scientific study, that videogames destroy children and turn them into murder zombies.
there is a upside to this if theres enough demand for it it might can break the curse on AO.
It would be nice if it would be accepted half as much as R rated movies.
@N8n8baby
look at other posts from the other large thread. However, the final outcome may be interesting...
The game should also be gold or going gold within a week. R* received the AO rating a month ago, so they must've been doing some things to prepare for the ann