Ok, I know that most drinks at Starbucks cost less than $5, even a Venti soy add shot whateveraccino. But that’s what you’ll get, if you don’t have your receipt from purchasing Grand Theft Auto two years ago. (You’ll get $35, if you did.) And, of course, if you’re still upset at a bit of consensual sex among adults being included as a secret players could unlock in the Mature-rated game.
Techdirt has a nice pithy summary of the results of the class action suit.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Peregrine // Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’ll be the first to admit exhibiting some occasional hypocritical behaviour, so I’m usually the last person to call someone a hypocrite unless they really, really deserve it.
But anyone who bought the game, went out of their way to find, download, and install the patch to view the Hot Coffee content, and then decided to get offended just so that they could get $35 out of the publisher, should automatically be labeled a hypocrite. Their check ought to come with a T-shirt with the word “HYPOCRITE” printed on it.
2 Xylitol // Jan 31, 2008 at 11:10 am
As a youngster (i.e. 13-15 or so) I saw a lot of the movie trading scene (now online) and saw many things in both US and Euro cuts. I always thought the stance toward sex and violence interesting as a cultural reflection and indeed in that they were often grouped together as though they by definition had something to do with each other. Many euro cuts went a little further with sex, allowing the love scenes to push it a bit further, while chopping those extra-bloody fight scenes a little. The US cuts did the opposite, not worrying too much about the violence but when the sex was approaching softcore it was time to chop a bit before that precious R turned into a NC-17.
I, too, figure hot coffee is a non-issue, being info still on the disc but not seen in the game itself without modding. Should it have been included as a true mini-game, I do think it would have been wise to mention that. I really dislike the hateful relationship that’s been established between the sides here. One would, perhaps naively, figure it was in everyones best interest to have products labeled for what they are and what they contain. This would work well for everyone. There seems to be no real incentive for producers to “sneak in” more explicit sex in products aimed toward those that for some reason do not want it there. This is probably the reasoning behind cutting it in the first place, gaining traction among those (or those whose parents) aren’t that comfortable with it and not losing much in those that are. The anti-explicit people are really much less wing nut then their spokespeople would have one believe, most are quite ok with simply being allowed to opt out. Thus, simply having producers of any media say honestly “This is what you’re about to see” and the other side potentially saying “We won’t buy that then” seems like a fine deal for both sides in my book, yet somehow it always ends up in a strange moral battle.