Arizona's Senate Judiciary Committee killed House Bill 2660 in a 4-2 vote; the legislation would have held media content producers liable for violent acts committed by consumers of video games, movies, TV and books. GamePolitics reports that the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Warde Nichols (R), says he will reintroduce a more concisely-written version in 2009. He believes, "At the end of the day, companies will have to stand before their customers and shareholders and explain why they are OK with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts."

The bill was written by attorney Keith Perkins, who runs the Never Again Foundation, and represents rape victims in civil suits. Perkins states under Arizona's current law victims can only sue attackers, but that the money they would collect is minimal -- media groups have much deeper pockets for victims (and their lawyers who get a cut of the settlement). It looks like Nichols' bill bit off way more than it could chew. Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) put it best when he said the bill was too broad and passing it might have unintended consequences.

A new Arizona bill aims to take on the entire media industry. House Bill 2660, which passed the state House of Representatives last month, aims to make a person "liable for damages if the person produces, publishes or distributes written, audio, video or digital material" that is deemed "dangerous or obscene." Such wording could apply to books, websites, video games, movies, TV shows and Numa Numa.

While the bill sounds ridiculous to the point of fiction, it is causing many to be concerned -- for example, who decides what is dangerous and obscene? The Video Game Voters Network has issued a call to action over the bill, and representatives for the MPAA and the Arizona Newspaper Associations have taken issue with it.

We at Joystiq aren't too worried. Should the bill pass, it would logically self-destruct, seeing as it is also dangerous and obscene written material.

[Via Game Politics]

A telling exchange during last week's Take Two earnings conference call may have revealed a sizable price tag for the Xbox 360's exclusive rights to Grand Theft Auto IV downloadable content. During the call, Pacific Crest Securities Analyst Evan Wilson inquired about a $25 million "deferred revenue chunk associated with the episodic content on Xbox 360." Take Two CFO Lainie Goldstein responded that the money was for "the first episodic content package that's supposed to go out ... in March of '08" and that another $25 million was being deferred for the second content pack, to be released later in fiscal '08.

Many news outlets are reporting that this revenue came from Microsoft to secure exclusive rights to these content packs, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the conference call or any other sources we could find. Take Two spokesperson Meg Maise would not comment on the matter, telling Joystiq the financial arrangements for the downloadable content were confidential.

Still, it seems highly likely that the money came from Microsoft. Deferred revenue is often used to account for money paid before a product is delivered, and Take Two deferring Microsoft's payment for downloadable content would be a prototypical example of the practice. It's hard to imagine where else Take Two would derive such sizable revenue before the product was released.

So was this a good move for Microsoft? Downloadable content is definitely a selling points for the Xbox 360 version of the game, but $50 million is a lot of money to pay just to get some additional content. If you're prepared to throw your money around, why not go all the way and secure the entire franchise as a system exclusive?

[Via NeoGAF]

Take-Two has confirmed that the promised episodic content for Grand Theft Auto IV on PS3 will not show up and is now an Xbox 360 exclusive. Questions arose regarding the episodic content earlier this week when the financial reports for Take-Two's fiscal year did not have the PS3 content present, but did have the Xbox 360. The game will still launch on both consoles Oct. 16 (Europe will receive it Oct. 19). Despite the Pachter effect, the release date for GTA is still locked and loaded for those dates.

So, why did this happen? Could have been a nice sum of money dropped into Take-Two's mailbox, or there were development issues with the PS3 content. Although not earth shattering, it does differentiate the two console versions of the game now and adds another piece of straw to Sony's already cracking back.

[Via Xbox360Fanboy]

Despite the rise of micro-transactions and pay-per-download content in the PC and console worlds, Valve recently announce it has no intention of charging for downloadables in games such as Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2. Designer Robin Walker explains their logic that gives Valve a big gold star in our book: "You buy the product, you get the content ... We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

Micro-transactions were innocent at first, but when we had to pay for horse armor in Oblivion and tutorials in Madden, the line had to be drawn. Kudos to Valve for a step in the "don't make the customers angry" (i.e. "right") direction.

Remember the bits and goodies that came pre-loaded on your Xbox 360? Well, bigger hard drive = more goodies. Microsoft is really packing 'em in on the Xbox 360 Elite HDD, and the standalone drive that will be available separately -- same content on both.

Although it's a ton of stuff, would it have killed 'em to throw in some freebie arcade games to help offset the cost? Especially for those people who will be just adding the drive to their current setup. Plus, this is all stuff you can download off Xbox Live anyhow, and are you going to want your drive clogged up with demos of Zuma and the Holiday '06 Accessories Video?

Faith Naked, "The Girl Gamer," has written up her tips on how struggling video game bloggers can come up with original content, which will then be passed around the intertubes like a plague. It's a pretty nice little compact list with each reasonable subhead hiding a paragraph that could get you in some serious trouble. We can agree with almost every single subhead, except for the last one and we're sure Faith was joking about that one too -- we really hope she was.

GameVideos plows through the ins and outs of Microsoft's forthcoming Video Marketplace, featuring downloadable HD movie and television content. The service will launch with six partners (content providers), including CBS, Paramount, Turner, Ultimate Fighting Championship, Viacom, and Warner Bros. -- remember, Apple's video iTunes launched with only ABC/Disney. The Video Marketplace update is scheduled for November 22.

See also: Microsoft's Scott Henson on TV and movies

The announcement of Valentine's Day events for both City of Heroes and World of Warcraft comes hot on the heels of a debate around virtual identity sparked off by a LGBT-friendly guild. The creation of in-game events that reflect popular world holidays is increasingly fashionable; it seems no week goes by without some new festival being celebrated in WoW's capital cities.

However, by first stamping out discussions of sexuality, and then opening up the floodgates by theming an event around love, what are Blizzard thinking? Will players be able to flirt with same-sex NPCs or will they be instantly banned for even venturing a hug? We hope that there will be some procedures in place to help stop harassment, as it can be difficult to throw off determined admirers at the best of times.

As for those gamers who prefer their MMOs with a dash of escapism, it seems to be a dying trend, especially amongst popular Western games.

[Image from the Alter Ego project]