|
Mind to
|
|
|
|
|
Hot Coffee Compensation WebsiteHot Coffee Compensation WebsiteYou might remember that last November, Take-Two Interactive (Rockstar Games is one of Take-Two’s labels) agreed to settle a class action lawsuit demanding compensation for the hidden sexual content on the game disc that could theoretically be unlocked. Earlier this year, a website went online to help those who purchased the game claim some of the settlement money. Available payments range from $5 to $35 or a replacement game disc, depending on the level of proof of purchase the claimant can present.
—
63 points
|
|
I am sorry to say that, but the whole class action lawsuit system so often (as in this instance) seems just plain stupid to me.
It's an American thing, isn't it? Never heard of a European getting trillions of dollars because he grilled his cat in the microwave oven (if that's not an Urban myth).
Trillions of dollars for a cat grilling would be a individual involved in a crazy lawsuit.
Class action lawsuits are supposed to help both individuals and companies by allowing lots of individuals to band together to minimize legal expenses and protect companies from litigation by thousands of different parties. Theoretically, it should help both sides to have such things grouped together, but it doesn't necessarily work that way in real life.
As with anything, it class action lawsuits have legitimate uses and abuses. There are certainly law firms that survive by pursuing such class actions. Of course, these sorts of lawsuits can also really help consumers and investors. I think the "hot coffee" scandal is a manufactured issue, so I'd categorize this as an abuse, but plenty of reasonable people would disagree.
> but plenty of reasonable people would disagree.
You know reasonable people that were actually offended by mild sexual content you had to manually unlock? (If if offends you, just leave it unlocked)
So I dare you, name one person who can argue this point without sounding like a religious fanatic :-D
Bob.
Seriously, though. I, obviously, agree that this case is silly, but on some level, Rockstar misrepresented what was in the package.
It may have been an oversimplification that all of us believe was totally reasonable, and lots of other companies may have done it for years, but there was a technical point that certain people with strong beliefs could hang their hat on.
Remember - for most 3D models in games nowadays (like for people on TV), there's a naked character under all that clothing. Theoretically, the clothing can be stripped off, and the character displayed. So doesn't nearly every modern game have undisclosed nudity? :)
Tell Bob that I think he's just in it for the money :-D
And I'm not sure that the last part is correct, for game characters nudity is just another set of clothing, or more accurately, clothing is just a differently looking "skin". In older games, the clothing texture was just "painted" on the model, these days, where you need a lot more then just a texture, the form of the clothing-objects is build right into the model itself, so when Lara Croft takes off her big winter jacket and you see her in a tight sweater (in the level Kasachstan) they switch to a complete new model.
But the point is that when the character is created in the 3D modeling software (before being simplified and imported into the game) - there's often a complete "nude" model, so that the clothing hangs properly. How much of the nude model gets into the game depends on the import process.
This is really a tangential point.
Ok, I get what you're saying now!