Evander said:
Why?
Rockstar LIED to the ESRB by not disclosing this. IF they had told the ESRB about it, but how it was inaccessible without modifying the game everything would have been okay, just like with the Manhunt 2 filters.
Instead, they didn't tell the ESRB about it, which is tantamount to lying, since the ESRB asks directly for anything like this to be disclosed, and because of their lie, they raked the entire pass-time of gaming through the coals for a couple of months, and even still left a bad taste in the mouths of many.
You're right. Rockstar substantially violated the ESRB guidelines. In fact, so substantially that if the ESRB had fined them, I'd totally get that.
... how does this involve you or me again? Because gamers are harmed by the fact that someone in gaming broke the rules and now some people think everyone broke the rules? That doesn't even make any sense.
Can I get a settlement from Bridgestone because of the defective tires? I never owned Bridgestone tires, but I do drive a car and for a while there there some real worries about tire safety.
Alternatively, NBC needs to pay a fine from showing an ass on Law and Order. It's pretty much the same scenario--it's a show that generally has mature content that viewers are aware of. There's a rating system to prove that. Should NBC owe me money? I didn't watch Law and Order; if I was going to now, it'd be intentionally, and even though they did not disclose that particular piece of mature content, no one should be mortified or surprised from the experience? In fact, Hot Coffee has an additional level of absurdity; it required a patch or game altering device to trigger the minigame! So it'd be like if Law and Order put up a screen that said "If you want to see an ass, press the 9 button on your remote" and I pressed "9" and when the ass popped up, I complained.
When a professional wrestler is caught using steroids, should they have to pay fans? Should they have to pay fans of rival wrestling leagues who are only affected by the nebulous charge that their hobby has been tarnished? That their hobby may someday be subject to regulation as a result of the action?
Should I be able to sue a tattooist who infects a patient because my father got a tattoo from another tattooist and tattooists being careless might lead to further regulation of the tattoo industry (which is not at all regulated where I live)?
The list goes on and on for how absurd this process is. We get it. You hate Rockstar. They're jerks. Being jerks does not legally constitute jack squat.
The only customer harmed in such a way that they deserve (ethically or legally) compensation from this scandal is a consumer who genuinely bought a game understanding and admitting the violent content... somehow accidentally activated Hot Coffee not at all being aware of the type of content in it... and was so sexually puritanical that they were caused legitimate distress from seeing pixels for a few seconds.
Anyone who is "harmed" on behalf of a hypothetical other deserves nothing. Anyone who is harmed and intentionally triggered Hot Coffee deserves nothing. Anyone who is harmed and did not read or understand the existing level of content deserves nothing.
Do we really believe that anyone out there somehow ACCIDENTALLY downloaded the codes to activate hot coffee, put it on their Action Replay, turned it on, activated the game, and honestly didn't know what the fuck they were doing?
Furthermore, do you agree with the arguments made since Hot Coffee that games ought to be punished if user created mods remove blur filters or clothing textures to reveal nude models, either anatomically correct or barbie-style? Even if you agree with fining the company, would you believe that gamers deserve compensation for this? Even ones that didn't buy the game but who are harmed merely because one of their hobbies has a controversy surrounding it?
Finally, even assuming that you accept all previous premises, how does one define the punitive damages necessary for such intangible damage as "my hobby is negatively impacted by their actions"? Can I sue Dennis Dyack for being a blowhard, or Gabe Newell for being fat, or another gamer for being a basement-dwelling nerd, or Tabris for being an idiot? Since when does "my hobby was embarassed" constitute standing for damages?
This lawsuit is a subversion of the class action process and the tort system in general. It's a legal and ethical disgrace. Anyone who profits from this is a fucking asshole.
