Manhunt 2 (effectively) banned

[Alzrius]

For those who haven't heard Manhunt 2 has been issued an Adults Only rating by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. As far as North American sales go (the game wasn't issued a rating by the British Board of Film Classification, meaning it has been banned in Britain and Ireland) this is devastating. Not only will major retailers such as Wal-Mart not carry an AO game, but Nintendo and Sony (the game was slated for the PS2, PSP, and Wii) will not allow an AO game to be published on their consoles.

Take-Two Interactive, the parent company of Manhunt 2's creator studio Rockstar Games, has issued a statement saying that the game has been delayed, I hope to appeal the decision (which is a viable option).

Personally, I'm quite upset with the decision. I know Nintendo and Sony have the right to say what goes on their consoles, and that the ESRB is just doing its job. But Nintendo and Sony's hard-line stance on AO games, with the ESRB's total authority over game ratings, has given the ESRB a de facto power of censorship over video games in America. Video game companies should not be forced to censor their content or instead be forced to only sell their work on PC format in specialty stores. The fact that people are not held accountable to be knowledgeable regarding what they buy, and the arbitrary line between a Mature rating and an Adults Only rating, is being unfairly passed off to the companies that make the games in the first place. Media is protected as a form of free expression, but together the console companies, the retailers, and the ESRB have managed to find a loophole.

It is my hope that Manhunt 2 will be given an M rating to avoid the unfair restriction placed on their ability to sell their work, and (though this seems unlikely) that the console companies will drop their punitive and arbitrary stance on AO games.

What do you think?

 

[SteelDraco]

I think it's a risk they're taking in making their product. They know they're pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. Now they know. They'll go back, and cut things out until they can manage a Mature rating. The intent of a game like Manhunt is to be sensationalistic, so this kind of thing is going to happen in an industry that has a ratings board.

Since they're putting out the game on someone else's console, using someone else's SDK and based on someone else's hardware, they're going to have to play by someone else's rules. Sure, it's somewhat unfair, and yeah, it's censorship. Is it morally right? *shrug* I don't think Sony, Nintendo, and Wal-Mart (et al) need to be deciding the morality of the American people, but they have every right to carry what they want. It would be more wrong for them to be REQUIRED to sell things that they don't want to sell, regardless of the content. So I suppose that means I'm on their side.

 

[Alzrius]

It's a risk they're being forced to take by outside forces that are unfairly placing restrictions on their ability to market their game. This isn't a question of "what they can get away with"; free speech isn't something you "get away with," it's something you're guaranteed, and they're being punished for exercising theirs in their product. A ratings board is meant to offer guidelines; it shouldn't have censorship powers.

I disagree that it'd be more wrong for companies and stores to be forced to sell what they don't want to. That's like saying that it's okay for businesses not to serve minorities, or that homeowners don't have to sell to minorities, because it's their right not to. We have laws preventing that kind of discrimination, and they should also apply to situations like this. People should have the option to buy what media they like, without restriction.

I'm of the opinion that, notwithstanding parents denying their children things they don't approve of, censorship is never morally right.

 

[Vigilance]

It's a risk they're being forced to take by outside forces that are unfairly placing restrictions on their ability to market their game. This isn't a question of "what they can get away with"; free speech isn't something you "get away with," it's something you're guaranteed, and they're being punished for exercising theirs in their product. A ratings board is meant to offer guidelines; it shouldn't have censorship powers.

I disagree that it'd be more wrong for companies and stores to be forced to sell what they don't want to. That's like saying that it's okay for businesses not to serve minorities, or that homeowners don't have to sell to minorities, because it's their right not to. We have laws preventing that kind of discrimination, and they should also apply to situations like this. People should have the option to buy what media they like, without restriction.

I'm of the opinion that, notwithstanding parents denying their children things they don't approve of, censorship is never morally right.

No, the ratings board didn't censor anything.

They gave it an adults only rating (AO).

At that point, stores said they wouldn't sell it, and Nintendo and Sony said they didn't want it on their consoles.

The ESRB didn't ban this game. Sony, Nintendo, Wal Mart, Gamestop, EB Games etc simply saiod they had no interest in selling it.

And it's certainly the right of a business owner to say that an item isn't right for his store.

 

[Alzrius]

The companies and retailers had said prior to the rating that they won't make/carry AO games. In essence, they declared censorship over a class of products, and then passed responsibility for determining what's in that category to the ESRB.

The ESRB can ignore that and claim that they just give the ratings, taking nothing else into account, but that's ignoring the fact that, like it or not, the burden of choice over what is and is not carried was placed on them. By willfully ignoring the authority these other companies invested in them, they've made their problem into the companies' problem, and that's unjust. Ideally, I think they should protest by not issuing an AO ratings until the stores and companies rescind their policies about not selling them, which are unethical. There's no real difference between an M-rated game and an AO-rated game; it's arbitrary, and to deny a company the right to sell their product in your venue over that is not fair.

And again, a store saying they'll sell all of a certain kind of products, except for a certain subset, doesn't seem okay. I again note that it's like saying you'll serve all kinds of patrons except those that are different in a specific way. It's unfair business practices, which is why it's been outlawed before. This is just it on the end of the wholesaler instead of the customer.

Sorry if I'm getting too worked up over this, but any kind of repression of artistic expression tends to set me off.

 

[Vigilance]

The companies and retailers had said prior to the rating that they won't make/carry AO games. In essence, they declared censorship over a class of products, and then passed responsibility for determining what's in that category to the ESRB.

The ESRB can ignore that and claim that they just give the ratings, taking nothing else into account, but that's ignoring the fact that, like it or not, the burden of choice over what is and is not carried was placed on them. By willfully ignoring the authority these other companies invested in them, they've made their problem into the companies' problem, and that's unjust. Ideally, I think they should protest by not issuing an AO ratings until the stores and companies rescind their policies about not selling them, which are unethical. There's no real difference between an M-rated game and an AO-rated game; it's arbitrary, and to deny a company the right to sell their product in your venue over that is not fair.

And again, a store saying they'll sell all of a certain kind of products, except for a certain subset, doesn't seem okay. I again note that it's like saying you'll serve all kinds of patrons except those that are different in a specific way. It's unfair business practices, which is why it's been outlawed before. This is just it on the end of the wholesaler instead of the customer.

Sorry if I'm getting too worked up over this, but any kind of repression of artistic expression tends to set me off.

Im all for free speech, but your rights in that area are not absolute. They end when they impinge on someone else.

You can't make threatening phone calls to someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.

In this case, all the respective parties have decided that an AO game would be bad for their business.

They also decided to put the ESRB in charge of ratings.

Everyone knows the deal. Everyone knows that an AO game would be going too far.

This is no different than a movie getting an NC-17 rating. Every movie producer knows that would cause 99% of all theaters to not carry it.

As for "a store not being able to not sell a subset of a product", I dont even believe you said that and dont believe you really mean it.

So if a store wants to sell videos it should HAVE to carry XXX porn? Please. Stores make decisions like this all the time.

Manhunt was called by many the most mature video game ever made. Knowing that, they openly stated their intent to "go further".

Sorry, but Rockstar is not the victim here. They abused their right to free speech, and now they're paying the price.

 

[tenkar]

It's not a free speech issue. It's not even censorship (least not of the government kind).

It's obvious the game AS IT IS NOW is not suitable for the marketplace in the US. Who decides that? The retailers.

There is a difference between an M rating and an AO rating. Just like there is a difference between an R rated movie and NC-17.

Are you expecting to see Walmart selling some nice XXX Rated movies next time you go? That seems to be the argument you are trying to make... if you sell movies, you should sell all subsets.

I can appreciate your anger and disappointment of not getting to enjoy a game you were anticipating. Your anger is misdirected... the makers of this game knew they were going to have a problem releasing it AS IS... this is all free publicity for the soon-to-be-released-and-already -completed M rated version of the game.

I expect someone will find the code to unlock the "hot Toddie" hidden bonus that will bring this back to an AO rating after the fact

(crappers... Vigilance was reading over my shoulder as I was typing

 

[Glyfair]

The companies and retailers had said prior to the rating that they won't make/carry AO games.

Which is their right. It's not censorship though. Censorship is when a ruling body prevents a body from being released. The ruling body isn't doing that, the retailers are. That's the difference.

Say that the major retail stores decide they aren't going to carry any games that get one star reviews from the major advance game magazines. Is it then censorship if one of them gives a game a one star rating, thus "effectively censoring" the game? No, because they aren't making the decision.

Everyone knows the deal. Everyone knows that an AO game would be going too far.

I wouldn't say that. It's not like there aren't any retailers who won't carry the game. In fact, some smaller retailers will revel in the fact that they have something the big chains won't touch.

However, if the company decides they want the wide release that only the major retailers can give them then they will change their game. That's not censorship, that's a business decision. They could still get their game out, just not at the amount of profits they want to see.

 

[SteelDraco]

It's a risk they're being forced to take by outside forces that are unfairly placing restrictions on their ability to market their game. This isn't a question of "what they can get away with"; free speech isn't something you "get away with," it's something you're guaranteed, and they're being punished for exercising theirs in their product. A ratings board is meant to offer guidelines; it shouldn't have censorship powers.

I don't buy that. It's not like Sony and Nintendo were unclear on things. If a game gets an AO rating, you can't use their consoles, and the specific materials and code needed to make that game run. The makers of this game don't have the right to use that code however they see fit; they're subject to contracts with the granting companies. They knew that going into things. Sony and Nintendo obviously feel that they will make more money in the long run if they don't allow AO games on their consoles. And that's their decision to make. That's like claiming that someone can spray graffiti all over my wall, because it's free speech. It isn't - it's my wall. You want to do that, go find your own wall.

I disagree that it'd be more wrong for companies and stores to be forced to sell what they don't want to. That's like saying that it's okay for businesses not to serve minorities, or that homeowners don't have to sell to minorities, because it's their right not to. We have laws preventing that kind of discrimination, and they should also apply to situations like this. People should have the option to buy what media they like, without restriction.

The only way this is going to happen is if people refuse to shop at the stores that censor their merchandise. These are businesses - if they find out that doing something else will be more profitable, that's what they're going to do. Those guidelines exist for two reasons. First, it's because the software industry wanted to avoid having the government step in, and impose some outside ratings system on them. Second, it's because somebody high-up in the retailers decided that it would be more profitable in the long run. The retailers think that the family market is bigger than the Adults Only market. Carrying AO stuff might cut into Family sales, so the AO stuff goes away. These are market pressures.

As to the stuff about minorities, I don't feel that's particularly relevant to the topic, or appropriate for this board.

Sorry, but Rockstar is not the victim here. They abused their right to free speech, and now they're paying the price.

I don't really agree with that, at least not the idea that they 'abused their right to free speech'. Nobody's being a bad guy here. Rockstar was testing the waters, to see at what point they were going to get an AO rating. This isn't a question of studio power, as it might be in the movie industry. Rockstar is a pretty big name in console games - they did all the Grand Theft Auto games, and so Sony and Nintendo KNOW they're going to make a good chunk of change off these games if they're released. Rockstar seems to think that the more 'edgy' they make their games, the more money they'll make. So they try to get as close to the line between Mature and Adults Only as they can, without going over.

While I might think this is a bit silly, I don't think it's an 'abuse'.

 

[Alzrius]

Im all for free speech, but your rights in that area are not absolute. They end when they impinge on someone else.

You can't make threatening phone calls to someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.

The fact that you're lumping a video game in with that is fallacious. Playing a video game is not the same as endangering someone's life.

In this case, all the respective parties have decided that an AO game would be bad for their business.

They also decided to put the ESRB in charge of ratings.

Hence what I said about them essentially making a policy and then handing it off to the ESRB, forcing them to take responsibility for how their ratings can then cripple sales. It compromises the objective review process when you know beforehand that your review dictates whether a company policy will be used to stop its manufacture and sale.

Everyone knows the deal. Everyone knows that an AO game would be going too far.

Please do not say "everyone." You are not the majority, you do not speak for the majority. What "everyone" knows is not for you to say.

This is no different than a movie getting an NC-17 rating. Every movie producer knows that would cause 99% of all theaters to not carry it.

Not the same; a movie is shown at the theater there with everyone. It's not a product you buy and take home with you.

As for "a store not being able to not sell a subset of a product", I dont even believe you said that

Believe it.

and dont believe you really mean it.

I do. Sorry, but you don't get to tell me what I do and do not believe.

So if a store wants to sell videos it should HAVE to carry XXX porn?

The store should not have a policy of not carrying such videos at all. They may not stock them right next to the other ones, but they should be able to procure them for you if you request them, even if it means having them sent over from a warehouse. They can't say "sorry, we don't have that just because we don't think it's appropriate for you."

Sorry, but Rockstar is not the victim here. They abused their right to free speech, and now they're paying the price.

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you think that "abusing" free speech is saying something that you don't personally agree with, then you're not talking about free speech at all. Again, a video game is not a death threat.

It's not a free speech issue. It's not even censorship (least not of the government kind).

It's not a government issue, certainly, but I believe it is very much a free speech issue. Censorship doesn't need to come from a government to be censorship; as the power of industries grow, so too does their influence.

It's obvious the game AS IT IS NOW is not suitable for the marketplace in the US. Who decides that? The retailers.

It's true that the retailers (and corporations) are deciding that, but that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think that anyone has the right to decide what is "suitable" for you and me.

There is a difference between an M rating and an AO rating. Just like there is a difference between an R rated movie and NC-17.

Such differences are arbitrary, and largely unquantifiable, which makes them poor excuses. This is even more true for the difference between a Mature rating and an Adults Only rating.

Are you expecting to see Walmart selling some nice XXX Rated movies next time you go? That seems to be the argument you are trying to make... if you sell movies, you should sell all subsets.

I'm expecting that Wal-Mart should at least be able to order them for me. Imagine the convenience!

I can appreciate your anger and disappointment of not getting to enjoy a game you were anticipating. Your anger is misdirected... the makers of this game knew they were going to have a problem releasing it AS IS... this is all free publicity for the soon-to-be-released-and-already -completed M rated version of the game.

I appreciate a good conspiracy theory too, but I don't think they anticipated this. The previous game (and other games just as bad) weren't banned; this seems arbitrary due to bad press from Manhunt 1. They shouldn't have to have an M rating to go forward with their livelihood.

I expect someone will find the code to unlock the "hot Toddie" hidden bonus that will bring this back to an AO rating after the fact

In all honesty that scandal seems to have a lot to do with this. I wonder how much of it is the ESRB just hedging their bets.

Which is their right. It's not censorship though. Censorship is when a ruling body prevents a body from being released. The ruling body isn't doing that, the retailers are. That's the difference.

When the major retailers, and the three console manufacturers, all make decisions not to host a certain classification of game, they are the ruling body (even if only de facto). Again, censorship does not have to come from the federal government to be censorship. Your local library banning certain books is censorship.

Say that the major retail stores decide they aren't going to carry any games that get one star reviews from the major advance game magazines. Is it then censorship if one of them gives a game a one star rating, thus "effectively censoring" the game? No, because they aren't making the decision.

Yes, it is. That's just them trying to evade responsibility by claiming someone else is the one who rated the game; they just have a policy in place. It's still their policy that is censoring the games; if anything, the fluid nature of such ratings (or reviews) shows how ridiculous and unfair such a policy is. If the ESRB changes its mind on an appeal, and gives the game an M rating without any of its content being altered, that just shows that such policies on the behalf of companies don't work.