Sony, Nintendo Block Manhunt 2 Release

[Smigit]

No, I'm saying it should be up to consumer to decide whether this is something they want. This is a business, suppy and demand. If this game is in demand & has met an ESRB rating, then supply it.

Obviously Sony and Nintendo do have the right to decide what they want this to be released on their own consoles (And this post certainly won't change that), But Rockstar is a reputable company with a reputable publisher (Take-Two) that creates VIDEO GAMES.

I dont necessarily agree with the censorship but if this is a Sony and Nintendo policy then the only people to blame are Rockstar. I know Nintendo had this stance and for all intensive purposes always has. I'm not that sure on Sony but, didnt know they didnt allow AO games. In any event, at least as far as Nintendo's policy is concerned Rockstar should have been aware of that from day one when they first got Dev Kits to make the title. They've gambled with the ratings board and lost which has also jeprodised their ability to sell the game.

So now the Games currently Banned in the UK and on Nintendo and Sony systems else where. I really don't expect this game to ship without some changes being made. Sure they can (atm anyway) go for a PC + xbox release in the states but they are still a business and need to make money. At the very least I can see a second tonned down version of the game being released to other regions and consoles.

[AdverseDeviant]

Can of worms.

well i was trying to say stuff thats scary is entertaining. i was just using something really nasty that wouldnt be allowed in a game.

[Vista]

Back on-topic.

Can we watch hardcore p0rn-dvd's on our consoles? YES.

And they want to stop us(adults), console owners, from playing a violent videogame?!

Imagine this:

You can buy a PC, but Windows will REFUSE to execute applications, images and video files with adult or violent content.

It's unbelievable that there even is a discussion going on whether the blocking is right or wrong.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Hmmm, seems to me that the console makers just can't be bothered with the negative publicity of such titles. Shame!

Personally, I think age ratings + choice are the best way forward.

That said, are we erring towards the gaming equivalent of the snuff movie period of the 80's?

[Smigit]

And they want to stop us(adults), console owners, from playing a violent videogame?!

Imagine this:

You can buy a PC, but Windows will REFUSE to execute applications, images and video files with adult or violent content.

It's unbelievable that there even is a discussion going on whether the blocking is right or wrong.

They arent developing for their own machines, they are developing games for another companies hardware and the games that are put out DIRECTLY influence how another company is perceived. Why does Nintendo often get labelled as a console for kids? Look no further than the types of games out for that system.

If this was a DVD then thats an entirely different matter. Movies are device independant and can be played on any DVD player. The issue here is that while Rockstar doesnt mind the notority it has achieved not just in this release but past ones, certain other companies have limits alot different to Rockstars and dont and shouldnt have to have content they feel uncomfortable with pushed on them.

Basically it would be like filming that hard core porn movie in Your house. Would you agree? Perhaps you wouldnt mind but your also entitled to say "no, I dont want that in my home". Whatever you do but will influence how your neighbours consider you as a family/person just as it would effect Nintendo's/Sony's image.

[Ironman273]

Imagine this:

You can buy a PC, but Windows will REFUSE to execute applications, images and video files with adult or violent content.

Let's say Gates finds religion over night and implements this. Is it his right? Yes. 2 outcomes can materialize. People like you hate it, leave Windows and the company fails. Or people accept it because it's better for their kids and keep supporting Windows. Either way, the choice to do it is made by the owner of the product. Your only "right" is whether you will use the product or not.

You know how a lot of people are against censorship by saying if something is on TV or radio you can just change the channel/station? Well, if a company is not doing what you want, change the company.

[cosine]

Imagine this:

You can buy a PC, but Windows will REFUSE to execute applications, images and video files with adult or violent content.

Nowhere near the same, really. Microsoft supplies the OS, that's it. After that, they don't care what you run on it or what hardware you run it on. With games, it's all controlled, and it's been this way for years. They make the hardware, they only allow what games they see fit to be run on their hardware. With Windows, there's no seal of approval required to release your product. You can go code an application right now, release it, and it's fine. Not the same on consoles. It's their brand name, and if they want to ban certain things on it to protect their image they sure as hell can do so. If I was Nintendo or Sony I'd do the exact same thing simply because this title isn't worth the massive negative publicity. Even if this game is never ever released, it's really not that big of a deal to either company. They'll continue on just fine without it. Allowing it to be released period, let alone as an AO game, would cause a gigantic media backlash, guaranteed, and even if this title sold a ton of copies it's just not worth it.

[Gavin001]

After all this fuss i want this game BAD :)

[benac]

After all this fuss i want this game BAD :)

Proof that controversy sells.

[neoadorable]

ironman change to what exactly? in both examples, the companies in question can allow themselves to behave like this PRECISELY because consumers have no tenable alternatives. if Sony, Nintendo and MS refuse AO games, where does a gamer go to play one? please tell me so i can buy that system.

i don't remember the last time i seen an AO game, nor an NC-17 movie.

c'mon, why bicker details? it's their system, it isn't their system...who cares? the real issue here is creativity versus control. both sides are OK, just pick one. i go with creativity.

and besides, if Sony and Nintendo et al are so on top of what goes on their systems, where were they when MH2 was being developed? don't they have guidelines for developers? did Rockstar ignore those guidelines knowing this whole controversy was a sham? or is this a case of "we give software houses complete creative freedom except we don't release their games"?

[Ironman273]

ironman change to what exactly? in both examples, the companies in question can allow themselves to behave like this PRECISELY because consumers have no tenable alternatives. if Sony, Nintendo and MS refuse AO games, where does a gamer go to play one? please tell me so i can buy that system.

i don't remember the last time i seen an AO game, nor an NC-17 movie.

c'mon, why bicker details? it's their system, it isn't their system...who cares? the real issue here is creativity versus control. both sides are OK, just pick one. i go with creativity.

and besides, if Sony and Nintendo et al are so on top of what goes on their systems, where were they when MH2 was being developed? don't they have guidelines for developers? did Rockstar ignore those guidelines knowing this whole controversy was a sham? or is this a case of "we give software houses complete creative freedom except we don't release their games"?

Well, that's my point. If the AO market is so in demand and Sony and Nintendo refuse to cater to it someone would jump in and do it.

As to your last point, Sony and Nintendo not allowing AO on their systems is nothing new and Rockstar knew it. I'm sure that they didn't think they would get an AO. Or maybe they purposely got an AO to generate buzz then they'll tone it down to an M.

BTW, I'm not saying Sony, etc. are correct in their judgment, just that they have the same right in denying an AO game as Rockstar has in making it.

[neoadorable]

it's a major issue dude. for better or worse, we're a captive audience. we love gaming and don't want to give it up, but are dependent on what may be considered a cartel. the notion of choosing a platfrom where things are different is really a moot point, since one isn't likely to come along unless someone can figure out how to build a grassroots machine that sells and makes money.

it's perfectly ok to think any side in this debate is right, but i suspect not all parties involved are being completely forward nor does this story make any of them look good or like they know what they're doing. And the gamers? we're worse off coz this little ploy will pay off for them in the long run.

[Doli]

As to your last point, Sony and Nintendo not allowing AO on their systems is nothing new and Rockstar knew it. I'm sure that they didn't think they would get an AO. Or maybe they purposely got an AO to generate buzz then they'll tone it down to an M.

Rockstar was trying to get an M rating. They can now challenge it or edit the game to get an M rating, it would be a big loss to them if they can the game.

[+vlsi0n Subscriber¹]

im more ****ed off of that fact it isnt coming to pc or 360, PS2? Wii? come on this game deserves to be on pc or 360 not ps2 or wii

[qft]

[salis]

Next headline: Take-Two cancels GTA IV on PS3. :p

[JSClark]

That is the suck.

Now I want to play the game.... bad.

[MrCobra]

With Windows, there's no seal of approval required to release your product. You can go code an application right now, release it, and it's fine.

Give me a freaking break. Apparently you've never noticed those "Designed for Windows" logos on software and games or the WHQL for drivers.

[cosine]

Give me a freaking break. Apparently you've never noticed those "Designed for Windows" logos on software and games or the WHQL for drivers.

First of all, this has nothing to do with drivers. And regardless, you can install non-WHQL drivers. Second of all, a "designed for Windows" certificate is not required. Are you honestly telling me you can't pick up VB or C or whatever, code an application/game, and release it? Because you sure as hell can, champ. How about you give me a freaking break, the PC is an absolutely terrible analogy to use when discussing this.

[Spookie]

First of all, this has nothing to do with drivers. And regardless, you can install non-WHQL drivers. Second of all, a "designed for Windows" certificate is not required. Are you honestly telling me you can't pick up VB or C or whatever, code an application/game, and release it? Because you sure as hell can, champ. How about you give me a freaking break, the PC is an absolutely terrible analogy to use when discussing this.

This is R* though, they must have spent millions. They need shops to carry it to sell the game to recuperate the losses on production. While it may not apply to other... Indie games. It's certainly the case with a studio with such a big staff base.

[cosine]

This is R* though, they must have spent millions. They need shops to carry it to sell the game to recuperate the losses on production. While it may not apply to other... Indie games. It's certainly the case with a studio with such a big staff base.

Hey, thanks, this has absolutely nothing to do with me telling him his analogy is terrible! Bottom line: your console is not a PC. You do not have the freedom of a PC on your console. The manufacturer of the console decides what is published on their console. Period. That's how it is and always has been.

[Samn9]

Now now, everybody calm down, there's no need to get so upset. :)

[soniqstylz]

I agree. It's a matter of choice, and It's for Adult only.

Last I saw the key demographic for gaming nowadays is the late teens (17-19) to early to mid twenties.

It's higher than that. The average gamer is 29.

[soniqstylz]

and besides, if Sony and Nintendo et al are so on top of what goes on their systems, where were they when MH2 was being developed? don't they have guidelines for developers? did Rockstar ignore those guidelines knowing this whole controversy was a sham? or is this a case of "we give software houses complete creative freedom except we don't release their games"?

Sony and Nintendo have no say in what goes on during development. One of the last steps when building a game is to submit it not only to the ESRB or other board (country dependant), but also to the console makers themselves for approval. You also have to do this for all versions (Japanese release, NA release, German release), etc.

If they say no, you go back and figure out how to reedit it for approval.

[neoadorable]

developing an entire product from scratch w/o even bothering to check if the intended platform is available for release...that's either profoundly dumb or indicative of a broken biz model.

[Ironman273]

developing an entire product from scratch w/o even bothering to check if the intended platform is available for release...that's either profoundly dumb or indicative of a broken biz model.

Which is why I think they were going for a strong M and didn't think they would get an AO. It's been great publicity for them, though.