Another San Andreas Lawsuit - Illinois

[FreeDoM]

Besides, the guy who had a lawsuit against McDonalds for becoming over weight lost =)

 

[Jesus]

I just wanted a video game, not eternal damnation in hell.

So I was sitting around the other day, playing "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas," when suddenly I received an email with an attachment called "hot coffee mod." So I did what I always do when I get programs from strangers in my email: I ran it.

Then I went back to playing the game and didn't notice anything different, except for when I took my in-game girlfriend back home, she now asks "how about a little coffee?" Naturally I got excited, because I was expecting to see a scene with the protagonist, Carl, and his girlfriend, Denise, sipping a tall cup of joe and discussing the finer points of globalization and how cultural distinction will shape future generations. Instead, I was shocked to learn that Denise wasn't talking about a delicious beverage made from roasted beans, but what she was really talking about was SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought there was some mistake, this couldn't be the family-friendly carjacking game I thought I knew. Maybe Denise changed into an outfit that just happened to look like the bust of a naked woman. I watched the scene over and over again, carefully analyzing every pixel, but the conclusion was inescapable: Denise was in fact nude. Or at least had a skin colored texture applied to the surface area primitive of her character's model. To prove it, I took a screen capture of the right nipple texture, and enlarged it to show that the game does in fact contain nudity:

[align=center]

[/align]


You are gazing into the pixels of moral decay.

The creator of the game, Rockstar Games, has stated that it will offer a downloadable patch to fix the sex issue in the PC versions, and is working on a new version of the game that will prevent this content from being unlocked in the future.

Thank God. I'll be the first person to download and patch my PC version of "Grand Theft Auto." I want to shoot people in the face, bang prostitutes, traffic drugs, steal cars, and terrorize police officers without this filthy smut in my game. Frankly, I'm appalled that Rockstar would allow such wholesale corruption of our youth. Years from now when America has become a withered husk of the morality it once stood for, historians will look back at what triggered it all and point to one event: a boolean variable that unlocked a simulated sex scene in a video game.

The game is now being taken off the shelves all over the country and re-labeled with an "AO" rating. This is much stricter than the "M" rating the game originally received. According to the ESRB website:

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons of age 17 and older.

As opposed to the stricter AO rating:

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older.

What pisses me off more than anything is that I paid for a game rated for 17 year olds, or possibly 17 and 1/2 year olds, tops. What I got was a game rated for 18 year olds instead. I must warn you that if you're easily offended, please shield your eyes from what I'm about to unveil to you:

[align=center]

A woman clearly in a heightened state of arousal.[/align]

I think it's only fitting for Rockstar Games to go out of business, and all the programmers lose their jobs over this. God bless Hillary Clinton for allocating tax money to have federal regulators investigate "the source of this content," because if she hadn't, consumers might have to go through the trouble of reading the label on the cover of the box.

1,307,255 children have been irreparably corrupted by the wanton sexuality Rockstar has forced into our homes with the aid of custom software modifications and a handful of access codes that could potentially be used with the purchase of a third party accessory.

scanned through for major obscenety before posting....

 

[Kasey]

There was one lady who sued mcdonalds and won because the coffee burned her but didnt say "caution contents are hot" Unless the nerves in here hand were dead she shouldve lost. I got a cup of cofee I'll read it before I drink it.<_<

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

In America you can sue anybody for anything.

If you don't even speak english you can sue McDonald's for not hiring you due to 'discrimination'...and win. And get rich.

Americans have taken the ability to step up against their offenders in a court of law to the point of absurdity, is all. People sue over spilt coffee, unsalted sections of snow in the winter time, 'discrimination' as I mentioned above...and the double-standard ridden sexual harassment craze of the mid to late 90s. Nobody seems to care that you can not drink hot coffee while you drive, or not walk where there's ice, or god forbid, learn english. Lawyers are out to milk every dime they can and that is unfortunately pretty much the American way--money talks, bull**** walks.

That is why this lady is suing them--to try and get a slice of the big ol' goldpile. Nothing more. She could give less of a damn about her kid, I wager. Most parents who do, wouldn't let him have GTA in the first place.

 

[Dragonballz4]

She probably wants more money so she can go shop and stuff

 

[tolore]

not that i agree with the person who's suing, that is dang stupid, but for the hot coffee thing i believe it gave her third degree burns. Third degree burns require a LOT of heat, the skin gets completely charred and killed and can do permanent damage, coffee should NEVER be that hot. that being said i could be wrong, i can't find my source for that.

 

[Deman]

not that i agree with the person who's suing, that is dang stupid, but for the hot coffee thing i believe it gave her third degree burns. Third degree burns require a LOT of heat, the skin gets completely charred and killed and can do permanent damage, coffee should NEVER be that hot. that being said i could be wrong, i can't find my source for that.

Yeah, there is a reason why she did win her lawsuit, the coffee was definately too hot if it could cause third degree burns. Anywho, l'm not quite sure these posts were on topic, so let's get back on the GTA discussion.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not only that the coffee might have given her third-degree burns, but, the cup was never labeled 'contents are hot'. Now, you might think to yourself, that's dumb, coffee is hot, it's common sense. Even if the lady had the cup between her legs, even if she was an idiot driver, who squeezed her legs causing the coffee to spill all over herself. McDonalds had a duty of care to inform it's customers that the coffee they serve might be friggin hot, no matter how much common sense it involves. By failing to provide that duty of care by labelling their cups with 'contents are hot', they left themselves wide open for that lawsuit. No matter how much fault is theirs, or how much fault is the woman's.

As for the Woman buying the video game. It's the same concept. They owed their customers a duty of care by telling them the content of the video game they were purchasing. By failing to disclose the 'hot coffee' content, whether hidden or not, R* did not uphold their duty of care to their customers. Whether or not that actually caused damages in excess of $75,000 is up for the courts to decide. However, the woman does have a case.

It's just the way the legal system works. We live in a society, where you can sue the Doctor who over-saw your birth, on the grounds that you are so messed up, whether it be physically or mentally, that the Doctor should have been able to foresee this, and recommend an abortion.

 

[Kasey]

Optimus Prime is right. Only if under the M it said "sexual content" then she would definately lose imo. However if it didnt say "sexual content" she could win despite the fact that kiling is worse than getting someone pregnant, and the fact that IF and only IF her child didnt buy the game himself because he wasnt 18 it should have been a sign that it had bad content in it. If her kid was over 18 then I'd be surprised if he had never seen a naked person before. IMO the case could go either way. Each side provides a fair argue.

 

[Chakra-X]

Heh heh, that maddox article sums it all up.

I'm actually amazed how far people will go just to be an ass. Now I love the way America works for the most part and I'd rather have loop holes than strict instructions, but something doesn't flow right when you begin to exploit them.

@Optimus
I just looked up an article about it and it said there was a lable that warned customers it was hot. McDonalds purpose makes the coffee between 180-190 degrees farenheight (sp?), becasue people like it that way to get the best flavor out (dunno why..).

You make a true point that people can sue for the most rediculous reasons, but it is still legit. The back of the current San Andreas box says: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong language, Strong sexual Content, Use of Drugs".

Now, I have no idea what the hell Rockstar was thinking by including that easter egg, unless they didn't know in the end, but if your going to buy a game that says "Strong Sexual Content" knowningly, I really don't belive she has a case. A car bumping around with moanign sound effects and taking pictures of girls in bikinis at the beach is overlooked, the gimmick is that its "Super secret hidden bad stuff" in the mother's eyes, which makes her feel like the game is corrupt, giving her a reason to sue.

 

[Optimus Prime]

No offence to Gir, and I do think Maddox is funny, and I've even posted his articles in threads as joke rebuttals. Posting a Maddox article is by no means a solid argument. =P

 

[tolore]

As for the Woman buying the video game. It's the same concept. They owed their customers a duty of care by telling them the content of the video game they were purchasing. By failing to disclose the 'hot coffee' content, whether hidden or not

hmm i disagree here, using the coffee anology, thats like getting the coffee, then heating it up yourself and getting burned by it and blaming mcdonalds. The fact that you have to hack the game to get to the hot coffee mod should put the fault squarely on teh consumer not the company. People use porn sprays in CS does that mean i can sue valve for corrupting my fragile little mind.

 

[Jesus]

Opti, i wasnt intending to use it as an argument i just thought it was funny =D

kurt, i dunno if your trying to be funny or not, so im not gonna issue a warning, but if another mod chooses to, then fair enough.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Allow me to Gir. Warning for Kurt. That **** didn't fly in your last post. And it's not going to fly now. :warning:
-----------

hmm i disagree here, using the coffee anology, thats like getting the coffee, then heating it up yourself and getting burned by it and blaming mcdonalds. The fact that you have to hack the game to get to the hot coffee mod should put the fault squarely on teh consumer not the company. People use porn sprays in CS does that mean i can sue valve for corrupting my fragile little mind.

Unfortunately, that's not the way law works. Even if you've done everything yourself to get to the content on the disc. The fact that R* created the content, and made it accessible (no matter how hard it was to get to, or how many EULA's you violated). Puts the liability on them. ESPECIALLY since the hidden content, contradicts the rating on the front of the case.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I agree that the law finds Rockstar liable, but I dont' agree that such is how things SHOULD be in the world. Parent's got to be held accountable, just like that woman who spilled the coffeee should have been.

To follow that example, and probably acknowledge the only thing these two women have in common: Do you think if there HAD been a label on the coffee saying "contents are hot"...she would have stopped to read it, before putting her coffee into her lap and driving away?

Doubt Ma McStupid read the box, either.

 

[Growler]

Not only that the coffee might have given her third-degree burns, but, the cup was never labeled 'contents are hot'. Now, you might think to yourself, that's dumb, coffee is hot, it's common sense. Even if the lady had the cup between her legs, even if she was an idiot driver, who squeezed her legs causing the coffee to spill all over herself. McDonalds had a duty of care to inform it's customers that the coffee they serve might be friggin hot, no matter how much common sense it involves. By failing to provide that duty of care by labelling their cups with 'contents are hot', they left themselves wide open for that lawsuit. No matter how much fault is theirs, or how much fault is the woman's.

As for the Woman buying the video game. It's the same concept. They owed their customers a duty of care by telling them the content of the video game they were purchasing. By failing to disclose the 'hot coffee' content, whether hidden or not, R* did not uphold their duty of care to their customers. Whether or not that actually caused damages in excess of $75,000 is up for the courts to decide. However, the woman does have a case.

It's just the way the legal system works. We live in a society, where you can sue the Doctor who over-saw your birth, on the grounds that you are so messed up, whether it be physically or mentally, that the Doctor should have been able to foresee this, and recommend an abortion.

It's just a sad thing that people go and sue because they want money, not because they really are emotional over the topic. Back then, it wasn't like that. It wasn't... "We're black, we have no rights, so let's go make a stand and see how much money we can get"... It was more, "We're being terribly mistreated and I think we should stand up for our rights as individuals" It's hard to see the faded line now-a-days... has anyone heard of the case where this Paparazzi member was harrassing Russle Crowe, so Crowe belted him in the stomach, and the Paparazzi got off with $11 million of Crowe's hard earned money? Rediculus.

Oh by the way... Do you guys think Pitt and Aniston will ever get back together!!?! huh, huh?! :S

 

[Smith|]

Going off-topic and flaming a moderator, my oh my. A third and final warning for you. This has to be a record, hm.

 

[tolore]

but they didn't make it accessible, they made in unaccessible some people hacked the code to make it accessibel. Its just as easy to hack the clothes off all the models and get nudity, would that be considered R*'s fault. Now i would understand if it was a cheat or an unlockable, but you need 3rd party programs and programming knowledge to get to this. Either way i guess we'll see how the courts rule on this one, i don't claim to know a lot about the law.

 

[Growler]

but they didn't make it accessible, they made in unaccessible some people hacked the code to make it accessibel. Its just as easy to hack the clothes off all the models and get nudity, would that be considered R*'s fault. Now i would understand if it was a cheat or an unlockable, but you need 3rd party programs and programming knowledge to get to this. Either way i guess we'll see how the courts rule on this one, i don't claim to know a lot about the law.

and why in the hell would 'pr0n' be on a video game... Rockstar get bored?

 

[Optimus Prime]

but they didn't make it accessible, they made in unaccessible some people hacked the code to make it accessibel. Its just as easy to hack the clothes off all the models and get nudity, would that be considered R*'s fault. Now i would understand if it was a cheat or an unlockable, but you need 3rd party programs and programming knowledge to get to this. Either way i guess we'll see how the courts rule on this one, i don't claim to know a lot about the law.

By leaving the code on the disc. The defense can argue the content was accessible. The only true way for the content to have been 'inaccessible' so to speak, would have been for it to not be on the disc period.