Patricia Vance Clarifies ... or does she?

Gamespot got the president of the ESRB on the line:

GS: My read of your statement yesterday suggests that the ESRB is directing its energy toward modders, not publishers, and is, in effect, saying it's worse to unlock adult-rated content than to put it in the game in the first place.

PV: We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is that if you, as publisher, produce content that's pertinent to a rating, and leave it on a disc--risking that it might be accessed by a modder--then it's your responsibility. And if it undermines the accuracy of the rating, it's your responsibility.

It's up to publishers to take action against third-party modders, not ours. Our only obligation is to make sure that the rating is accurate. The publisher is responsible for creating content. If they then leave it on the disc and it undermines the effectiveness of the rating, then we have no choice but to take action. We're actually putting responsibility solely in the publishers' hands.

-- Cooling Hot Coffee

I really want that to make me feel better, but it really kinda doesn't. It's way too vague and the "action against third-party modders" bit ... on one hand she emphasizes content left on the disc, but on the other she is reminding publishers that what happens to their programs is their responsibility.

I'm not sure that wouldn't include someone putting a naked skin on a model and then putting them into interesting situations. Or even just using a game engine to produce a porn machinima. I mean, that's all just hacking content on a disc. The fact that it's varying degrees of it doesn't enter into Patricia's rhetoric.

And of course, now we have a Floridian lawyer attacking Sims 2 for nakedness.. Since that's somewhat old news, hopefully he won't get traction and this will all die down. Then it will probably be truce time until Hot Coffee 2.