Rockstar “Spazzed Out Like Little Babies” Says Simpsons Game Writer

Is there a simmering feud in Game Developer Land?

GamePolitics readers may recall the dust-up between EA and Rockstar at the recent Leipzig Game Convention. Rockstar objected to satirical GTA references in the upcoming The Simpsons game (see: Rockstar Bullies EA Over Parody).

Specifically, a poster for Grand Theft Scratchy, a GTA parody which appears in The Simpsons, drew Rockstar’s ire.

A trio of writers on the game have fired back at Rockstar on Geoff Keighley’s Game Head program. Matt Selman (left) explained the controversy:

The game begins with Bart wanting to play a game called Grand Theft Scratchy. Of course this is a parody of Grand Theft Auto. And Marge immediately takes it away from him. She tries to clean up the town and stop the game from being distributed in Springfield because Marge is against video game violence. She uses horrific violence to stop video game violence… in a video game.

Thats called irony… The people who make Grand Theft Auto, they spazzed out like little babies.

Writer Matt Warburton (right) chimed in:

They’re supposed to be rockstars… That’s not a big Rockstar move, to be afraid of The Simpsons making fun of their game.

Selman also dinged Rockstar a bit for the delayed release of GTA 4:

We couldn’t get our game out in time, so we’re afraid that the gamers — who are not morons — are going to get confused by an Itchy and Scratchy poster of Grand Theft Scratchy – they’re going to think that’s the same thing as Grand Theft Auto

EA lawyers are afraid to use the name Grand Theft Scratchy in promoting the game… [Rockstar’s] games are full of satire, lame attempts at parody… basically putting the words sixty-nine in wherever they can find it…

Selman eventually paid homage to GTA, but couldn’t resist a parting shot: 

Their games are amazing. Trust me, I’ll be the first person in line to play Grand Theft Auto 4… in five years when it comes out.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0

    […] Perhaps this could have all been avoided if Manhunt 2 was any good – after all, films like “The Departed” prove that a bleak, unrelentingly violent work can be recognized as genius – but the noted industry tough guys at Rockstar mailed it in, figuring that their inimitable sense of “style” trumped their complete – and unsurprising – lack of substance. […]

  2. 0
    bakaohki says:


    Thanks. Breaking down and clearly answering posts instead of flying off the handle is what I’ll end up doing now… nothing is solved from just throwing insults.

    Taking a moment to read anything posted by JT here, then taking a moment to research or just think calmly can usually produce a counterargument showing that he has no legal grounds to proceed on.

    Now, what about Rockstar vs. EA? I’ve been thinking on that for two days. Perhaps the fact that the level wasn’t about a direct parody of GTA, but a parody on people cracking down on that type of game and trying to remove it from stores? Sounds more like a JT parody, which could complicate legal matters. Who knows. In any case, EA didn’t have to remove the offending material, but they did. They have every right to whine about it… but that’s about it. It gets them a bit more press, and a few more game sales…

  3. 0
    Overcast says:

    You may not know that the 40+ state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction all have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which criminalize the sale of sexually indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age.

    Beats posting explicit porn on public sites, huh Jack?

  4. 0
    kurisu7885 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “As I was saying, Strauss Zelnick should buy Hypocrisy, Inc. from me. He’s the biggest scapegoat I have in the video game universe. Just ask EA. Jack Thompson, wrong again.


    Fixed it for you Jack.

    As to the topic, will everyone quit ragging on Rockstar? The Simpsons game was heavily advertising that one level like it wasa selling point, looking to make money off of it. Rockstar doesn’t try to advertise based on their parodies, they let people find those on their own.

    I think I’ll let the ads speak for themselves if they have to go “look, we made a level like GTA, we’re so edgy” to get people to buy it.

  5. 0
    I'll keep the feeding short... says:

    @ Jack
    “sexual material harmful to minors”
    You mean the same obscene and such laws you based your failed “1st amendment proof” laws on?

    Why are you not suing the likes of the movie(R-“unrated”) or music(explicit, suggestive, blatant…) industry then? You keep ignoring the fact that they have worse rates of selling kids such items then M rated video games…

    While the above bares repeating, we already know the answer here is because you are a hypocrite.

  6. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    @ Mr. Blond

    Marge already did that in an early episode, leading a protest against the Itchy & Scratchy cartoon.(Which was a parody of the Michigan woman complaining about Married with Children)


  7. 0
    Paul Kerton ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Well everyone is falling over themselves to make comment on this, meanwhile Jack Thompson rants about absolutely nothing in relation to it… and EA get the publicity that this little stunt was designed for….Nice.

  8. 0
    ooftygoofty says:

    Wow, and I thought JT was irrelevent before.

    Yeah, the folks at Rockstar are being really stupid over this, and I won’t soon forget this, but I’d take a million of these over one JT. Thankfully, as always, he disappears as soon as I log off the site.

    I’m playing a game, Jack. Why can’t you stop me?

  9. 0
    Yo Momma says:

    Well Yo momma is slut that she is a sexual pervert in her first life not in her second.

    Yo momma is slut that she had cyber sex with jack thompson.

    Yo momma is slut that she plays video games because it vibrates.

  10. 0
    HurricaneJesus says:

    Picho, Gears of War has been know of since May 2005, if not earlier, while AoT was announced by EA a full year later in May 2006. Just because you didn’t hear about it, doesn’t mean no-one else did.

    But anyway back to the topic, EA is shit.

  11. 0
    Picho, reviewin yer mindz ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Socialist Gamer

    Well your mom is an informd educated contibuting member of the scocity!

    (sorry. When i get tired like this i start thinking of yer mum jokes.)

  12. 0
    Socialist Gamer ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know, no matter how much Rockstar is “Spazing,” these guys are just being freaking immature. Seriously, I’ve seen ten year olds tossing around more meaningful jibes than that. Why not make a “Your mom” joke while they’re at it?

  13. 0
    Picho, reviewin yer mindz ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Actually I’ve heard of Army of Two waaay before Gears. In fact when i first saw Gears i thought it was Ao2.

    Though it could be like Pixar and Dreamworks. Where one makes a movie about bugs, and the other follows up with ants. One makes a movie about fish, the other follows up with more fish. I’m sure thier is more of that. (dunno if it was dreamworks though, i think it was.)

    The only thing that really upsets me with EA was thier use of in game ads for BF2142.

    Cause come on. If your going to use ads, make the game cheaper. Like Anarcy online makes it free if you play through the ads.

    I have a game i’m plotting, (Looking for job) where there would be Ads in it. The Ads are actually used in missions and stuff (like simple stupid ones such as “Tug mah Sign”) and are situatated around casino cities or other big cities. The ads would advertise in game products as well as ‘modified’ real world products as to not break the ’emersion’.

  14. 0
    HurricaneJesus says:

    If EA feels that they parodied GTA in a fair way, then why did they pull the poster?

    It is kinda like how when JT threatened TT about the first mission in GTA IV, they didn’t even acknowledge him. It was a baseless threat, and they were not at risk of any action against them. EA must have realized that they were open to legal action, and therefor pulled it.

    Besides, look at EA. They see the success of Gears, and make Army of Two. They are the biggest pieces of shit in the video game industry. They are scum.

  15. 0
    Saladin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jack, at this point, Zelnick wipes his rear with your worthless threats. In all seriousness, you are a damn JOKE. But hey, don’t let your total and complete failure stop you……

  16. 0
    PHOENIXZERO ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I know it’s been said already but I think it needs repeating.

    The difference between GTA’s parody/name spoofs is that they don’t use them to sell the game, which is exactly what EA was doing with the Grand Theft Scratchy thing. Sure it’s still stupid for Rockstar to get pissy about it, but I can understand it somewhat.

  17. 0
    Benji says:

    I maintain that there might be a good reason for R*’s action on this – either that or some sort of communication breakdown. That, and I guess that in the absence of damning information I’d rather side with R* than EA.

    I would also humbly request a stronger policy of removing from a thread any posts that are completely off topic. I admit that this is largely because of JT – he has a habit of hijacking perfectly good discussions with his press releases which tend to be full of, at best, speculation, and at worst, outright lies, and then we spend the rest of the thread analyzing his statements rather than talking aboout the issue at hand. That, and other posts have in the past been deleted for failing to be on topic – I don’t feel that we should bend that rule for JT just because he’s been on TV.

  18. 0
    previso says:

    Shit, ‘nuf already. Bunch rich nerds bitchin ‘ bout make believe shit. GTA, the Simps. FANTASY, fuckers, f*ing FANTASY. None of our damn biz anyway.

  19. 0
    Gatz says:

    I’d say it’s a good rockstar move EA sucks ass it’s the crappiest company in the entire game industry and if I had a company I wouldn’t want them parodying my game even in a phrase in the game because I wouldn’t want to be associated with them, makes rockstar look bad like them and EA are friends.

  20. 0
    Robert says:

    This really elminates whatever credit I gave Rockstar for being proponents of freedom of speech. They’ll run for the lawyers as fast as anyone to censor others.

  21. 0
    Murry ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I find myself in a bizzare paradox where I want to comment on how JT’s comment is so baseless and idiotic that it dosnt deserve attention. But making that statement means ive given it attention. huh.

    But onto the topic at hand. It dosnt surprise me that R* would be childish little simps about this. Those who enjoy taking jabs at others seem to be the ones that have the most problem when the tables are turned.

  22. 0
    Luke says:

    I’m glad the developers finally found their nuts and are blasting Rockstar for this. They shouldn’t have changed the game for it, and Rockstar has absolutely no grounds to try to punish others for parodies.

  23. 0
    GryphonOsiris ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m really curious when will Take-two take too legal action looney toon for violating their settlement, considering that they have the legal ground for it, simply saying that he signed said agreement in bad faith and is not blatantly violating it. Perhaps they are waiting for his disbarment so he 1) will not be able to stall it with pointless and meaningless legal fillings, 2) will actually have to PAY another lawyer to represent him, i.e. $$$$$$$ out of his wife’s bank account.

    Basically, give him enough rope to hang himself with.

  24. 0
    Michael ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Jack …..

    R* prove themselves to be a pack of idiots and you HAVE TO out-do them yet again !! Why are you vying for the crown of “Moron of the Year”?

    Incidently, I have no idea why people place R* on such a high pedestal. Their games aren’t THAT good, you know.

  25. 0
    bakaohki says:

    Oh my. Folks, scroll up; Jack posted again.

    Time to break it down.

    Dear Strauss:

    You are now formally on notice that the above product is being sold to anyone of any age, with no age verification whatsoever, not only through Take-Two’s own web site but through other Internet sites as well.

    No, it has verification. Credit card verification. If you don’t agree with that, go after the federal government. Pursuing Take-Two or the other sites on your FRAUDULENT charge won’t work and opens you up to countersuit. Plus, you can’t sue — agreement earlier this year, remember? Guess not.

    Secondly, you are now formally on notice that Manhunt 2 has an ESRB “descriptor” that proclaims it contains “Strong Sexual Content.” You may not know that the 40+ state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction all have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which criminalize the sale of sexually indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age.

    The “Mature” rating that the ESRB uses foolishly allows sales of sexual material to teens as young as 17. This one year hiatus, between 17 and 18, exposes Take-Two corporately and you personally to criminal prosecution.

    Sorry, Jack, wrong again. Strong sexual content does not mean that it has sexually indecent material in it; only that it has “strong sexual content”. If the material was sexually indecent, an AO would have been given. May I point out the strong sexual content in episodes of Family Guy, which are viewable every week on Fox, available even on televisions with an ANTENNA? Strong sexual content, yes. Indecent and lawbreaking? No. Same for Manhunt 2. Pursuing Take-Two on your FRAUDULENT charge won’t work and opens you up to countersuit. Plus, you can’t sue — agreement earlier this year, remember? Guess not.

    Govern yourself accordingly, regarding this “fine art.”

    Misuse of quotation marks. Videogames are art. Ask the Library of Congress. Plus, they already are governing themselves accordingly; the game was rated AO, they edited it, it’s now M. If you disagree with it… tough.

  26. 0
    nrad99 says:

    I don’t think it is the actual game developers at rockstar who are bitching; probably just the guys who make all the financial decisions. Its pretty shameful and it gives Jack Thompson and the like ammunition.

  27. 0
    CyberSkull ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Way to look like jerks (again) R*! For once here, EA is in the right. R*, if you want to do parody then you must expect, nay, encourage people to parody you!

    If you can’t take a joke, then you shouldn’t make a joke!

  28. 0
    Benji says:

    @FlyinM_X: Interesting idea, that, and I do follow what you’re saying – that GTA wants to think of itself as ‘better than’ Itchy and Scratchy. That gets into a question of artistic merit, though, which won’t fly. If you say Itchy and Scratchy can’t parody GTA because the former lacks anything but senseless violence, it’s a short step to saying that, say, Scary Movie infringes on Scream and other slasher movies because the former is just slapstick and movie references, or that Spaceballs infringes on Star Wars for being silly, or that Robot Chicken infringes on, well, damn near everything. It is not our place, or anyone’s place, to decide what IP is deserving of protection and what isn’t. Otherwise some would have already said that video games, by virtue of being games, don’t deserve the same protections as books or movies.

  29. 0
    Zero Beat ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I hate to be the grammar police, but the first line should read “Is there is a simmering feud…” instead of “Is their a simmering feud…” These sorts of errors irritate me to no end, and it’s something they force us to learn in stenography school.

    As for the content of the article itself, they’re basically saying what everyone who heard about this was thinking. Rockstar, we’re not idiots. We know what games we’re buying and playing. If we come across a parody of a game within another game, we’re not going to assume that we’re playing the game being parodied. We’re going to think that we’re playing a video game that contains a parody of another video game, because that is all that’s happening. To suggest that any reasonable person would think otherwise is insulting.

  30. 0
    aresil ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    i’m surprised R* don’t let this slide… They usually have a pretty good sense of humor about this sort of thing. That’s not say that I necessarily agree with EA about it, but this does seem to have been blown out of proportion.

    To ‘Mr.’ Thompson, if he can be called as such:

    I’m so sorry, but you seem to have mistaken the readers of this website for people who care. Go somewhere else and spout your vitriol. I think I speak for everyone when I say we’ve had enough.

  31. 0
    FlyinM_X ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I don’t watched the simpsons much anymore, nor do I plan on getting this game, but I do think that maybe this has something to do with the symbolism of the poster.

    Itchy and Scratchy were nothing more than gratuitous violence on the show and the poster shown continues that trend. By comparing them to grand theft auto, maybe T2/R* believe that the poster would fuel the fire that is “gta=pointless violence”

    We all know (except one) that GTA is not just about killing for the sake of killing, but Itchy & Scratchy were.

    Do you see what I am getting at? If you don’t just say so, I can try to be a bit clearer with my opinion

    P.S. first post here, so sorry if I come off a little weird.

    @ Jack

    Maybe I will get to speak to/about you in the future…

  32. 0
    Merc25 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Oh… PR stunt by EA to generate hype for their shovelware Simpson’s title based off of the Simpson Movie. By guess is missing the release window(about time the movie came out), cost EA the retarded parent purchase.

    Remember when the developers of this game just made this out to be a giant misunderstanding with a gung-ho over zealous lawyer from R*. Yeah, funny how they[EA] nears the fall release(It comes out tomorrow for the US) of this title their gets more elaborate.

  33. 0
    Benji says:

    I’m still thinking about what possible reasons R* would do this – especially since they have, to my knowledge, let other GTA parodies off in the past. (What can I say, slow day at work.) Some possible explanations:
    1) R* did in fact just lose its sense of humor at some point.
    2) It isn’t the stance of R* as a whole but just that of one overzealous lawyer or executive within the company.
    3) This isn’t parody because it’s just a poster. A parody usually has enough content to establish itself as kind of like its source material, only with a few key, silly differences. This may not be parody but just EA whoring out R*’s intellectual property to advertise something.
    4) It’s not a parody because the use of R*’s IP isn’t creative enough. If they advertise a Grand Theft Scratchy portion of the Simpsons game, advertise using the same box art and art style as GTA, and have that portion of the game be just like GTA… it becomes questionable whether what they’re doing is parody, or if they’re just taking someone else’s IP, changing the names, and selling it as your own.
    I’m not saying this is definitively not a parody, but I’m willing to argue that it’s presumptive to claim that it definitively IS parody.

  34. 0
    pen gun ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    does anyone here play Garrys mod. because if they do they will get this insult.

    jack you are a mingebag.

    my steam name is sdbarbary if any one wants to play.

  35. 0
    pen gun ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I am sorry ok. I just hate how far the series fell. It died when maud died. I do like family guy. I own alot of the early simpsons collection and they used the marge idea in the last game anyway.

    to jack.

    fuck off.

  36. 0
    Matthew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Hey, I’ve been sold the wrong games! My copies of the Grand Theft Auto series are made up of vulgar puns (mainly to do with homosexuality) and parodies of other games and films, padded out with mindless violence and a bit of story. What evil agent added these references to Rockstar’s entirely original games?

  37. 0
    DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    JT says: “As I was saying, Strauss Zelnick should buy Hypocrisy, Inc. He’s the biggest hypocrite in the video game universe. Just ask EA. Jack Thompson, right again.”

    Let’s see how many things you go against that you have become.

    Vigilante, (illegal stings) distributor of adult material to minors, (gay porn) and a ‘kiddy,’ (your posts here).

    I think the title of hypocrite belongs to you, Mr. Thompson.

  38. 0


    Rockstars’ management is just interested in avoiding any more attention than it already has (and will) generate. I don’t think they should have bothered with this, but coming out of the already heated media hate they’ve had for manhunt 2, i can see why they just don’t want fresh attention.

  39. 0
    Zerodash ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think JT is age-regressing these past few weeks. His posts and court filings are becoming more and more childish. He also seems to be cruising toward a libel/slander suit- be careful or you’ll wish you did.

  40. 0
    Chris says:

    I think this has more to do with US copyright law than Rockstar being hypocritical. Doesn’t a copyright holder have to at least complain about violations? My understanding is that if they don’t they set a precedent and might risk losing the copyright/trademark.

  41. 0
    Jay says:

    How the hell would anyone here know if it’s going to be a big game or not? I think it will sell well, just cus of the simpson fan base alone. And i’ve heard good reviews of it so far. And you can’t base a game on it’s demo, that’s just lame.

  42. 0
    Matt Lucky says:

    well honestly the Simpson’s game is not going to be very big most likely. games based on things like movies and other media rarely turn out well and from the demo on XboxLive i can already say that it doesn’t play well.

    so if not many people play it than it’s even less of a big deal.
    Rockstar is just a little sensitive. Maybe they need “Johnson ans Johnson’s no tears baby shampoo”

    GTA is one of the greats though

  43. 0
    Overcast says:

    Honestly, it’s hypocrisy on Rockstar’s part. In any PS2-era GTA game they not only pepper their game world with parody posters, they have spoofs of movies on the radio stations and lines from other movies deliberately placed in the dialog. But then EA does the same thing and it’s suddenly wrong. Give me a break.

    Yeah, well said.

  44. 0
    arowe87 says:

    I’m thinking the whole of Rockstar don’t really have a problem with the parody. In the original piece that was run on this, the lead developer of The Simpsons game said he thinks it was just one of the lawyers overreacting.

    Rockstar flipping out over this doesn’t make sense, considering their past with Reflections

    Rockstar and Reflections have gone back and forth with parody and jabs at each other in games before. Rockstar started it in GTA3 and Reflections responded with Driv3r having Timmy Vermicellis with waterwings mocking the inability to swim in Vice City. Rockstar then responded again in a Madd Dogg mission in San Andreas.

    So why would they flip out over The Simpsons game having a parody instead of just poking fun of the game in their next game. So I see it as one person overreacting.

  45. 0
    Benji says:

    It does seem uncharastic of R*, who usually doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. I can see two things about this parody, though, that combined make it somewhat less benign than most.
    1) The parody is being used on advertisements. Advertisements that are used to sell games. So EA is, in theory, making money off GTA’s likeness.
    2) The parody poster (at least the one linked in the story) is a very good parody. It has the look and feel of the usual GTA art down rather well. It’s good enough, in fact, that someone not very well informed of the circumstances could conceive that it was an actual game and that if R* wasn’t making it they were at least giving it the company’s blessing. Parody, I thought, is supposed to be obvious enough that no one in the target audience could possibly confuse the parody with the real thing. I’d argue that that’s not the case here – the poster could be construed by some as R* backing the Simpsons game somehow, and EA making money off it.
    Note – and I think this is significant – that the article clearly states that the advertisement poster was the focus of R*’s ire. I imagine they’d have no problem with them being parodied – it’s happened to them often enough, and they say parody is the highest form of flattery. But things become more complicated, perhaps, when the parody is no longer being done solely for entertainment purposes but is being used to sell something.

  46. 0
    GryphonOsiris ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Well, with his legal license taken away he’ll need an alter form of income, discounting of mooching from his wife, of course.

  47. 0
    GoliathWins says:

    The real irony is that they’re spazzing over what is most likely a request from Rockstar’s lawyers or editorial. Those jabs at the dev team were totally uncalled for.

    Oh, and you don’t get to zing other people over “lame attempts at parody” when the best you can come up with is “Grand Theft Scratchy”. GOD. Thank you, EA.

  48. 0

    “As I was saying, Strauss Zelnick should buy Hypocrisy, Inc. He’s the biggest hypocrite in the video game universe. Just ask EA. Jack Thompson, right again.”

    Was it really Strauss Zelnick? Like…Strauss Zelnick of TAKE TWO? Or just Rockstar? I figure I should ask, Jack, because you’d be the one to know, right?

  49. 0
    jack thompson, attorney ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

    1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

    Coral Gables, Florida 33146

    October 29, 2007

    Strauss Zelnick


    Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

    C/o Howard Camerik

    Blank Rome

    Boca Raton, Florida Via Fax and e-mail

    Re: Manhunt 2

    Dear Strauss:

    You are now formally on notice that the above product is being sold to anyone of any age, with no age verification whatsoever, not only through Take-Two’s own web site but through other Internet sites as well.

    Secondly, you are now formally on notice that Manhunt 2 has an ESRB “descriptor” that proclaims it contains “Strong Sexual Content.” You may not know that the 40+ state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction all have “sexual material harmful to minors” statutes which criminalize the sale of sexually indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age.

    The “Mature” rating that the ESRB uses foolishly allows sales of sexual material to teens as young as 17. This one year hiatus, between 17 and 18, exposes Take-Two corporately and you personally to criminal prosecution.

    Govern yourself accordingly, regarding this “fine art.”

    Warm personal regards, Jack Thompson

  50. 0
    nxlimit says:

    Nice to at see some developers getting pissed at other developers. I don’t know why, but I think it’s actually kinda intriguing. This could spur some Simpsons-related parodies in GTA4, making Rockstar’s anger over this issue ironic on multiple levels. Oh the insanity.

  51. 0
    bakaohki says:


    No, you’re not “right again”. This is opinion vs. opinion, so you’re not right on this just because one person has the same opinion as yours.

    And just when were you ever “right” before? This isn’t about you, Jack. Be quiet and let those who are grown up speak.

  52. 0
    BlackIce, Leftie says:


    You just mentioned the Arse! Turn in your Penis, ’cause your credibility has gone down One Million points.

    Yo can have it back at the end of the day.

  53. 0
    GryphonOsiris ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    While I’m not defending Rockstar, I can kinda see where they are coming from. With all the guano from the looney in Florida, the games that are half-ass knock off of GTA, and the bull crap that Hillary and Lieberman have been giving them I’m not surprised that they are a little touchy right now.

    Did they over-react? Heck yeah, however they are under a lot of pressure right now, frankly.

  54. 0
    Aj Collins says:

    I think I might know why Rockstar is doing this. EA bought Renderware. The gaming engine Rockstar has been using for years. When EA bought it, Rockstar had to come up with their own engine. At the same time, EA gave less support for games that they where already working on for the Renderware engine. I would be pretty pissed at EA too if I where them.

  55. 0
    linenoise says:

    @las, attorney

    EA is only concerned with in-game advertising and gathering data off your computer to support more targetted advertising. They don’t care about the games, just milking them for as much as they can. That’s the nature of business, of course, but they’ve got to be one of the worst. How many other companies have class-action lawsuits filed against them by their own employees?

  56. 0
    Baramos says:

    Spaz is like a slang word for somebody who “freaks out” over nothing, gets overly excited or angry for what is seen as little to no reason.

    It’s probably derived from the medical condition where someone suffers spasms or seizures, which has led to many PC hounds trying to keep people from using the term “spaz”.

    Anyway. It was rather lame of Rockstar, BUT only EA would actually instantly kowtow to Rockstar’s insistence, so there are two parts to this idiocy.

  57. 0
    Jabrwock ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    What I want to know is, where is this “spazzing” coming from? Developers? Lawyers? Did some legal hound at TT overreact and fire off a quick whiney C&D letter before thinking about it for a second?

    Who exactly on the R* team is bitching about this?

  58. 0
    Rammsoldat says:


    Nah man groening wanted to end the simpsons a while back but he’s legaly bound the let fox ride the shows corpse all the way down the murderhorn (woot simpsons reference). Its kinda sad that other shows from the simpsons staff stable like futurama and the critic die out in their prime, its like the simpsons is feeding on the life of the other shows like some prime-time vampire.

    And as for family guy i quite like it though i find its jokes are VERY hit and miss and most of em are done better in robot chicken.

  59. 0
    las, attorney says:

    I don’t really care about this so-called ‘feud’. At the end of the day, they’re taking cheap shots at R* for taking so long to create a good game.

    Yet EA have been around since 1982 and haven’t made a single game worthy of sniffing R*’s shit. Maybe once EA decides to actually let their developers make a good game instead of rushing a shitty one out in a matter of months, then sticking a licence on it and hope no one will notice the game is not a faithful recreation of their favourite movie/TV show but is in fact dogshit, then maybe I’ll give two shits about what EA have to say.

  60. 0
    PeterWDawson ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m wondering if it’s more about them not just being properly informed about the parody earlier on and such. I mean, it’s hard to support something you weren’t informed of at the right time and nothing gets my dander up faster than something I created being parodied without my permission.

    If you ask me the EA guys are being worse than Rockstar in any event. Sure Rockstar’s crying foul over something that seems trivial, but going on TV and calling them babies (who the hell still calls people babies? What are they 10?) and taking shots at the game series they want to parody? Yeah, that’s a real good way to get them to see your side of things.

  61. 0
    Trevor McGee says:

    Yeah, I got to agree. Rockstar were really chumps this time. You’d think that since they do it quite a bit themselves that they wouldn’t mind a little back, but you see here that they’re just babies.

  62. 0
    Quad9damage ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Honestly, it’s hypocrisy on Rockstar’s part. In any PS2-era GTA game they not only pepper their game world with parody posters, they have spoofs of movies on the radio stations and lines from other movies deliberately placed in the dialog. But then EA does the same thing and it’s suddenly wrong. Give me a break.

  63. 0
    Jmcc ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yeah, they spazzed out like a little baby, Selman. And that was enough to totally outwit your camp and make you run off with your tails between your legs. But at least you can zing them a few times during an interview.

  64. 0
    lumi ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yeah, something about this doesn’t sit quite right with me. It doesn’t seem characteristic of R* at all.

    If it is a genuine stance being held by the company at large…grow the hell up, guys. You’ve made your name on controversy and parody. First mission of GTAIV ring a bell?

    Also, someone give pen gun a tranq. What the hell is up with that, dude?

  65. 0
    Chuma ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Purely because it is competing against it from a rival firm on the same media type. When it was a film/tv spoof it is fine. When it is a game that competes for money and sales, that’s another thing.

    As for Simpsons Hit and Run, they probably weren’t bothered because it was a complete bag of s***e. This new game might actually be half decent?

  66. 0
    nightwng2000 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m certainly confused as to WHY Rockstar is opposed to this particular parody and not others. I mean, “The Simpsons Hit and Run” was clearly a GTA parody. And “Grand Theft Walrus” from The Simpsons Movie was a parody as well.

    So why this one?

    NW2K Software

  67. 0
    Zerodash ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Exactly how would Grand Theft Scratchy harm the GTA name, R*, or TT? I guess someone at R* thinks they are the only ones who can satire anything. Unless, of course, this is all instigated by slimy lawyers.

  68. 0
    PlayItBogart says:

    Bah. EA is huge. They should go ahead with the Grand Theft Scratchy campaign and have their lawyers counterslap R*’s lawyers if they complain.

    Failing that, sic Madden on them.

  69. 0
    jack thompson, attorney ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    As I was saying, Strauss Zelnick should buy Hypocrisy, Inc. He’s the biggest hypocrite in the video game universe. Just ask EA. Jack Thompson, right again.


  70. 0
    Ken ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Simpsons Road Rage ripped off Crazy Taxi. There was one case where Sega sued Acclaim (or whoever developed it) for saying it was too similar.

  71. 0
    Dustin1986 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ pen gun

    You seem to have some deep rooted issues with The Simpsons. Did they abuse you when you were little? Point on the Krusty doll where The Simpsons touched you.

    If you were ranting against Family guy I could understand, but geez! The movie that just came out wasn’t bad. It really gave the series a shot in the arm so I think it has a few good years left.

  72. 0
    C'tri says:


    i see your point, but satire comedy shows that have adverts including clips of their satire, would surely be guilty of the same?
    using bits of a game to advertise it is (imo) hardly ‘not right’, and if the bits of the game include sattire, then so what?

    the simpson’s show does it all the time, with satire being in loads of their adverts.

  73. 0
    pen gun ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    fuck Matt Selman He is the only piece of shit here.
    The simpson show has been unfunny for years now.

    but they can’t end the fucking series. The sad fact that they need to rip something off Oh I mean parody A good franchise is sad.

    fuck the simpsons. fuck you all to fucking hell.

  74. 0
    Stinkypooo says:

    I’m sure Rockstar was ok with the satirical version of GTA but when you use it to sell your game, like EA did, then that’s just not right. If Rockstar satired Madden on one of their games and used it to sell their game, EA would be the first one calling their lawyers.

  75. 0
    squigs says:

    This shows a very poor sense of humour from Rockstar and really is quite hypocritical. They parody a hell of a lot. They have the legal right to do so and the Simpsons have the legal right to parody GTA.

  76. 0
    Saladin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Gotta admit, the situation makes at least a FEW of you guys giggle, right? Will anyone remember this little dust-up when GTA IV rules gaming for a while?

  77. 0
    DarkTetsuya ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Showed this to my aunt (A PD, as well as a far better lawyer that JT probably dreams about being ;))and as we all already knew with the GTA IV thing, they don’t really have any room to complain.

  78. 0
    Team Quiggan says:

    But, in the eyes of the law, they weren’t making a parody of GTA, they were making a parody of the silly hoopla that surrounded GTA. Because they wern’t making parody game, instead using the parody to fuel the rest of their game, its not fair use. Its a lot similar to the Penny Arcade American McGee/American Greetings parody.

  79. 0
    pen gun ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    does anyone remember simpson’s hit and run. It was a bad GTA knockoff and they used the marge agaist games thing there too. They can’t be original can they.

Leave a Reply