GTA Hot Coffee lawsuit response: No one cares

**JoeE** · 06-26-2008, 04:37 AM

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6193000...stnews;title;3

But look on the bright side, it only cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and a few lawyers got rich!

In November, Take-Two Interactive reached a settlement with disgruntled purchasers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas over a class action suit stemming from the the hidden "Hot Coffee" sex minigame. The suit brought threatened to have the publisher pay out as much as $2.75 million for the game, which has generated over $370 million in revenue by selling above over 9.1 million copies in the US, according to the NPD Group.

Those who were offended by the game and pledged that they wouldn't have purchased San Andreas had they known about the Hot Coffee content could snag between $5 and $35 from Take-Two in restitution. Despite the mainstream media furor and political posturing that arose in the wake of the minigame's discovery, only 2,676 filed claims in the Take-Two class action settlement, according to The New York Times. Those claims totaled less than $30,000, meaning Take-Two will make up the rest of the $1 million minimum it pledged to spend as part of the settlement by other means, including an $860,000 charitable contribution.

By contrast, the lawyers whose suit brought about the settlement are seeking $1.3 million in legal fees. With the settlement still awaiting judicial approval, another lawyer unrelated to the case is seeking to have it denied. According to the paper, Theodore H. Frank, director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American Enterprise Institute, believes the lawyers who brought the case are either "selling out" their clients to get their own payday, or brought a suit that had no merit to begin with.

**mike black** · 06-26-2008, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by JoeE

or brought a suit that had no merit to begin with.

Wow. Really!?

**Alexander Hamilton** · 06-26-2008, 05:46 AM

This actually succeeded?!!?

Wasn't the game rate M? These people that were offended, didn't care about the rampant killing and other debauchery, but the sex bothered them?

I never get this mentality that violence is okay, but sex is a no-no. Peoples priorities are all fucked up.

**Fourthman** · 06-26-2008, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

This actually succeeded?!!?

Wasn't the game rate M? These people that were offended, didn't care about the rampant killing and other debauchery, but the sex bothered them?

I never get this mentality that violence is okay, but sex is a no-no. Peoples priorities are all fucked up.

Not that I disagree in principle; I agree. But the title suggests a crime game, not a sex game. And that conceptual "bait and switch" is what people are basing their outrage on.

**cPol** · 06-26-2008, 05:59 AM

I still don't get why this got as far as it did. How could Hot Coffe have been offensive? The only way to access it was to go out on the internet and download a user-gernerated (not generated by the company... generated by the user), install it and alter the released game's code. You had to want to access it and take outside action to do so.

**Alexander Hamilton** · 06-26-2008, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by IronFist

I still don't get why this got as far as it did. How could Hot Coffe have been offensive? The only way to access it was to go out on the internet and download a user-gernerated (not generated by the company... generated by the user), install it and alter the released game's code. You had to want to access it and take outside action to do so.

Exactly... me and a friend were just talking about this. You had to go out of your way to view this content.

**xyzzy** · 06-26-2008, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Exactly... me and a friend were just talking about this. You had to go out of your way to view this content.

I think the idea is that parents are trying to regulate the content that either their kids buy or that they buy for their kids. The argument is that if the kids could access it, then it should have been disclosed. That's really the whole point of the ESRB rating and if a company deliberately circumvents it by putting in hidden content that will be exposed after purchase, that's not acceptable.

There's probably enough there for a legitimate, if weak, lawsuit. Of course, we'll never know all of the facts or how it would have shaken out because they settled.

**Alexander Hamilton** · 06-26-2008, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by xyzzy

I think the idea is that parents are trying to regulate the content that either their kids buy or that they buy for their kids. The argument is that if the kids could access it, then it should have been disclosed. That's really the whole point of the ESRB rating and if a company deliberately circumvents it by putting in hidden content that will be exposed after purchase, that's not acceptable.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with this argument. This is a game that was rated M. The whole objective of this game is to become the worst type of criminal imaginable. If a parent is buying this game for their child, it's their fault not the companies. If the child is getting the game without their parents permission, then the fault lies with the retailer.

**xyzzy** · 06-26-2008, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with this argument. This is a game that was rated M. The whole objective of this game is to become the worst type of criminal imaginable. If a parent is buying this game for their child, it's their fault not the companies. If the child is getting the game without their parents permission, then the fault lies with the retailer.

The ESRB puts, specifically, what kind of potentially objectionable content the game has on the cover. For example, it might say "Realistic violence, sexual situations" or something like that. It's not just that it was rated M. Plus, there's another rating beyond M, AO, that the game might have achieved if the Hot Coffee content was reviewed by the ESRB.

If a parent wants to buy the most ultraviolent game for their kids but avoid sexual content, that's their perogotive. And companies shouldn't try to circumvent that by placing hidden content in their games.

I think that's the main issue of fact that would have come up. Whether or not the content was intended to be seen or if they genuinely thought it was inaccessible.

Whether you or I agree with the argument or people's parenting decisions is not relevant. All I'm saying is that the argument exists and it's enough for a legitimate lawsuit. Not that it's correct.

**Alexander Hamilton** · 06-26-2008, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by xyzzy

The ESRB puts, specifically, what kind of potentially objectionable content the game has on the cover. For example, it might say "Realistic violence, sexual situations" or something like that. It's not just that it was rated M. Plus, there's another rating beyond M, AO, that the game might have achieved if the Hot Coffee content was reviewed by the ESRB.

If a parent wants to buy the most ultraviolent game for their kids but avoid sexual content, that's their perogotive. And companies shouldn't try to circumvent that by placing hidden content in their games.

I think that's the main issue of fact that would have come up. Whether or not the content was intended to be seen or if they genuinely thought it was inaccessible.

Whether you or I agree with the argument or people's parenting decisions is not relevant. All I'm saying is that the argument exists and it's enough for a legitimate lawsuit. Not that it's correct.

I suppose I see your point that the lawsuit is legitimate.

I guess it's more of a problem I have with the current status quo. Instead of parents taking personal responsibility for allowing children viewing age inappropriate content, eating too much fast food, etc., the first instinct is to sue the maker's of said product that should be available to responsible adults.

It's this culture of "it can't possibly be my fault, so let's sue" action that has me all riled up.