Mods under the gun in wake of GTA scandal.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:37 am

Found this article today. I'm not surprised that attention would turn to gaming mods, since they've always occupied a grey area for most companies. With the "think of the CHILDREN!" censors on the offensive it wouldn't surprise me to see efforts made to lock them out.

With many video games, there's no "game over" screen, no reason to ever get bored. In a long-standing practice called "modding," fans create their own new chapters, artwork and other twists to extend the lives of their favourite games. Many game makers freely encourage the practice and give away free software tools to help.

But some in the industry are now wondering about the ratings implications posed by mods after a Dutch programmer created one that unlocks a hidden sex level in the violent action game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." After all, video games aren't like the feature films you see in the theater or get on a DVD. They're made of software code. They're malleable.

The Grand Theft Auto mod, called "hot coffee," was developed by Patrick Wildenborg, who made downloads freely available on the Internet about a month ago.

Most major retailers promptly removed the game from store shelves after the Entertainment Software Rating Board, an industry body, changed its rating Wednesday to "adults only" from "mature."
...
Even though Rockstar admitted the mini-game was hidden in the retail game, the "San Andreas" ratings flap could change the way game companies view mods.

In a statement, the Entertainment Software Rating Board's chief, Patricia Vance, called on the industry to proactively protect games from illegal modifications by third parties, "particularly when they serve to undermine the accuracy of the rating."

But completely stopping modders could to be a near impossible task, said Sid Shuman, an editor for GamePro.com.

"It's something, frankly, that digital entertainment is not really well equipped to deal with. You can't really stop people from making changes," he said. "People will always find where that one file is, and they will always be able to modify it."

jcompton · Post by **jcompton** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:15 pm

It's a ridiculous cop-out in this case since the content was already in the game code, but of course Rockstar is trying to deflect blame for either being unaware or indifferent to their porny little easter egg.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:32 pm

After all, video games aren't like the feature films you see in the theater or get on a DVD. They're made of software code. They're malleable.

But this isn't that different from DVDs. To make an analogy, this is like putting objectional video in a hidden chapter of a DVD, that certain DVD players may be able to access, for example.

This isn't like someone took a malleable game and created the objectional material themselves. It was there already - it just needed to be unlocked.

And video is malleable - one can edit video to make it appear like something else (admittedly, though, it would be harder to create something as objectionable as can be created via mods if you're just changing the context rather than adding new video in.)

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:54 pm

Well, it's not like someone would go after every game. I'm sure The Sims 2 is safe.

It's not just the adults that are liberated from their wardrobes. Sims kids can also be nudified, "much to the delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse."

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:04 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Well, it's not like someone would go after every game. I'm sure The Sims 2 is safe.

It's not just the adults that are liberated from their wardrobes. Sims kids can also be nudified, "much to the delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse."

Well, he's just wacko:

Were this to be true, Thompson would have his smoking gun, and EA would be forced to recall all copies of The Sims 2. However, it's what's under the blur that Thompson's after. And what happens when the blur is lifted? A simple mannequin-esque smooth body, according to EA.

Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA, in response to the accusations, told GameSpot, "This is nonsense. We've reviewed 100 percent of the content. There is no content inappropriate for a teen audience. Players never see a nude sim. If someone with an extreme amount of expertise and time were to remove the pixels, they would see that the sims have no genitals. They appear like Ken and Barbie."

Creepy_Smell · Post by **Creepy_Smell** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:10 pm

I modded my pens so I can draw nudes.

How did Bic not know there were nudes in its inks?!

The pedophile thing is wacky. How messed up do you have to be to take the time to think that sims2 is a pedophile sim?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:12 pm

I can add genitalia to the sims, but the ink would ruin my monitor.

Creepy_Smell · Post by **Creepy_Smell** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:15 pm

Nade wrote:I can add genitalia to the sims, but the ink would ruin my monitor.

What you do is draw on overhead sheets and then tape them to your monitor. Keeps the monitor all clean.

Turtle · Post by **Turtle** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:47 pm

Fortunately he has less legal standing on this issue since this is user created content, a kind of form of free speech it could be argued, rather than content left on the CD.

This whole thing screams Mcarthy to me.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:49 pm

At least we can still get games about killing blacks, latinos and jews.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 8:37 pm

Smoove_B wrote:At least we can still get games about killing blacks, latinos and jews.

That raises an interesting point - why does this bother some people, but a game that glorifies gangbanging with all the implies can gets a pass from many of the same people. Aren't they both wrong?

Giles Habibula · Post by **Giles Habibula** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:09 am

Creepy_Smell wrote:I modded my pens so I can draw nudes.

How did Bic not know there were nudes in its inks?!

Exactly. All the software Rockstar used to make the game should also be rated AO, since it can be used to create AO stuff.

baron calamity · Post by **baron calamity** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:47 pm

The news, (as in the rating system we've used for eons) hasn't reached BJs whole sale club yet

Creepy_Smell · Post by **Creepy_Smell** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:52 pm

Well, they are called BJs after all

Cofcos · Post by **Cofcos** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:37 pm

I love watching the media/politicians talking about stuff they haven't a clue about... Oh, wait...

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:23 pm

Cofcos wrote:I love watching the media/politicians talking about stuff they haven't a clue about... Oh, wait...

You must never stop watching CSPAN!

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:36 am

Giles Habibula wrote:
Creepy_Smell wrote:I modded my pens so I can draw nudes.

How did Bic not know there were nudes in its inks?!

Exactly. All the software Rockstar used to make the game should also be rated AO, since it can be used to create AO stuff.

Except there's a difference. Rockstar shipped a sex game to teens by deceiving the ESRB. So far, no one else has done that. EA has nothing to fear from this (frivolous) lawsuit and the ESRB and game developers are not under governmental control. That's the reason the ESRB was created, in fact.

If developers don't ship NC-17 content in PG-13 games, they won't get busted for it. It's that simple.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:33 am

I still dispute that the content was 'in the game'. When it has to be hacked to be played, it isn't 'in the game'.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:15 am

Blackhawk wrote:I still dispute that the content was 'in the game'. When it has to be hacked to be played, it isn't 'in the game'.

It was on the disk. Who cares if it was in the game? Would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on a game cd, just because it wasn't a part of the game (but could be watched in game with a simple mod - or even if not)?

EDIT: Pre-emptive response to people saying that just because it's on the disk doesn't mean anything: bullshit. Disk contents are a major deal; something as simple as the order the files are burned onto the disk can be important. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing and the PLANNED for the porn game to be found.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:57 am

Nope, sorry. If you go out and buy GTA:SA, you can do absolutely everything in the game, try out every trick you can think of, explore every corner, do absolutely everything and you will never, ever know that content is there. It is absolutely and entirely impossible for you to see it or access it, because it is not in the game[/i]

Now, if you go out and search the internet, download a hack that modifies the program, then, and only then, will you even be able to get at the content. I'm not saying that Rockstar is 100% blameless, but saying this is exactly the same as a blurbed feature is just entirely off target.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:22 pm

Zurai wrote:
Giles Habibula wrote:
Creepy_Smell wrote:I modded my pens so I can draw nudes.

How did Bic not know there were nudes in its inks?!

Exactly. All the software Rockstar used to make the game should also be rated AO, since it can be used to create AO stuff.
Except there's a difference. Rockstar shipped a sex game to teens by deceiving the ESRB. So far, no one else has done that. EA has nothing to fear from this (frivolous) lawsuit and the ESRB and game developers are not under governmental control. That's the reason the ESRB was created, in fact.

If developers don't ship NC-17 content in PG-13 games, they won't get busted for it. It's that simple.

17+ means that most teens can't get it. Rockstar did not ship anything "to teens."

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:31 pm

Eduardo X wrote: 17+ means that most teens can't get it.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:49 pm

Nade wrote:
Eduardo X wrote: 17+ means that most teens can't get it.

Any teen that is sophiticated enough to get their hands on the game then find and download the hack is smart enough to get all the porn they want from the net as well. It's a non-issue.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:06 pm

Eduardo X wrote: 17+ means that most teens can't get it. Rockstar did not ship anything "to teens."

Not even close to being true. For example, no online store checks age in any way.

The fact remains - they intentionally shipped a porn game piggybacked on an already lower rated game. I ask again - would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on the disk just because it's not 'in the game' (even though the minigame IS in the game, that's how it's so easy to mod). Rockstar KNEW this would happen - they PLANNED for this to happen. Quite honestly I expect that THEY released the 'hack' to make it happen. Why shouldn't they be punished for it? If you leave a porn movie under Finding Nemo and tape to the front of the case "little jimmy, you may find this interesting" is it not your fault for doing so, even though you never physically put it in the dvd player?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:55 pm

Zurai wrote:The fact remains - they intentionally shipped a porn game piggybacked on an already lower rated game. I ask again - would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on the disk just because it's not 'in the game' (even though the minigame IS in the game, that's how it's so easy to mod). Rockstar KNEW this would happen - they PLANNED for this to happen. Quite honestly I expect that THEY released the 'hack' to make it happen.

What a bunch of crock. Where's the part about the aliens and CIA?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:09 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Zurai wrote:The fact remains - they intentionally shipped a porn game piggybacked on an already lower rated game. I ask again - would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on the disk just because it's not 'in the game' (even though the minigame IS in the game, that's how it's so easy to mod). Rockstar KNEW this would happen - they PLANNED for this to happen. Quite honestly I expect that THEY released the 'hack' to make it happen.
What a bunch of crock. Where's the part about the aliens and CIA?

Are you really naive enough to believe that Rockstar didn't expect someone to find this content on the CD and that word would get out? I seriously doubt that they put the crack enabling it out there - there's no need to, people always dig into game files to see what's there - they knew someone would find it and enable it. You surely can't believe they didn't anticipate this!?

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:21 pm

Blackhawk wrote:What a bunch of crock. Where's the part about the aliens and CIA?

Straw men will do you no good. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't actually release the mod - as Grif said, it's very simple, just changing a boolean from false to true. That's beside the point. Do you know what's involved in getting a video game printed? One of the very first steps in actually creating the gold master is a complete inventory of every file to be put on the disk(s). All files that are not used are removed from the list, then (if the developers have time) the files are sorted to improve read times. The fact that an entire minigame and all of its accompanying uninque art and animations that are not used anywhere else in the game 'slipped' past the inventorying process is complete and utter bullshit. The files are on the CD because Rockstar wanted them on the CD. There is no other way for them to get there.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:24 pm

Grifman wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:
Zurai wrote:The fact remains - they intentionally shipped a porn game piggybacked on an already lower rated game. I ask again - would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on the disk just because it's not 'in the game' (even though the minigame IS in the game, that's how it's so easy to mod). Rockstar KNEW this would happen - they PLANNED for this to happen. Quite honestly I expect that THEY released the 'hack' to make it happen.
What a bunch of crock. Where's the part about the aliens and CIA?
Are you really naive enough to believe that Rockstar didn't expect someone to find this content on the CD and that word would get out? I seriously doubt that they put the crack enabling it out there - there's no need to, people always dig into game files to see what's there - they knew someone would find it and enable it. You surely can't believe they didn't anticipate this!?

First off, if they were going to add it in there as a special publicity 'feature', they would have finished it - the screenshots I saw looked half-assed with missing textures and such. Secondly, leaving unused content on disks is very, very common. I've seen any number of mods for various games that serve to add unused textures, models, dialogue, even levels back in. Sometimes it is because they disable them at the last minute, sometimes it is because they forget to remove the old data, and sometimes it is because they've designed something else that makes use of parts of the disabled features.

In any case, them leaving that there isn't the least bit uncommon, and it doesn't look like an intentional easter egg.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:24 pm

Just to be clear, I'm no more a proponent of censorship of PC/video games than any other person here. It's one reason that I refuse to shop at Walmart, for instance. That being said, Rockstar quite literally asked for it and they should, IMO, get an even harsher penalty than what they got. They intentionally undermined the one authority that the gaming industry has any control over, the one body that has the potential to stand between the games and government interference. That's bloody stupid, self destructive, and (as shown) destructive towards the entire industry.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:29 pm

Blackhawk wrote:I've seen any number of mods for various games that serve to add unused textures, models, dialogue, even levels back in.

And why, exactly, do you think that is? Maybe it's because the developers wanted to leave that door open to fans?

Sometimes it is because they disable them at the last minute, sometimes it is because they forget to remove the old data

Incorrect. You do not 'forget' to remove dozens of megabytes of models, textures, and animations from a gold master.

and sometimes it is because they've designed something else that makes use of parts of the disabled features.

In which case, they aren't unused.

In any case, them leaving that there isn't the least bit uncommon, and it doesn't look like an intentional easter egg.

Shipping content that you knew before you ever even designed it - let alone paid artists to model/texture/animate - would never be allowed by the ESRB is not an unintentional 'easter egg'. Rockstar knew they couldn't ship a sex game with an M rating. Why, then, did they spend money creating one?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:34 pm

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I've seen more than one game to duplication with redundant or unused data on it. It isn't uncommon, and isn't some sort of 'bonus' for the modders.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:42 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:
Zurai wrote:The fact remains - they intentionally shipped a porn game piggybacked on an already lower rated game. I ask again - would it be acceptable to ship a porn movie on the disk just because it's not 'in the game' (even though the minigame IS in the game, that's how it's so easy to mod). Rockstar KNEW this would happen - they PLANNED for this to happen. Quite honestly I expect that THEY released the 'hack' to make it happen.
What a bunch of crock. Where's the part about the aliens and CIA?
Are you really naive enough to believe that Rockstar didn't expect someone to find this content on the CD and that word would get out? I seriously doubt that they put the crack enabling it out there - there's no need to, people always dig into game files to see what's there - they knew someone would find it and enable it. You surely can't believe they didn't anticipate this!?
First off, if they were going to add it in there as a special publicity 'feature', they would have finished it - the screenshots I saw looked half-assed with missing textures and such. Secondly, leaving unused content on disks is very, very common. I've seen any number of mods for various games that serve to add unused textures, models, dialogue, even levels back in. Sometimes it is because they disable them at the last minute, sometimes it is because they forget to remove the old data, and sometimes it is because they've designed something else that makes use of parts of the disabled features.

In any case, them leaving that there isn't the least bit uncommon, and it doesn't look like an intentional easter egg.

A few points:

1) No one has claimed leaving unused stuff on a disk isn't common - that is irrelevant and isn't even an issue

2) And since we agree it is common, can we also agree that it is also equally common for people to poke around and look for stuff, right?

3) And lastly, the question I put to you that you still refuse to answer - given the agree upon above, didn't/shouldn't Rockstar know that if they left something like this in the game, that someone would find it?

So that leaves us with 2 options - Rockstar left it in there deliberately - or Rockstar was incredibly stupid. Take your choice

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:54 pm

Incredibly stupid, without a doubt. I've a feeling that there were no more seperate files than, perhaps, a texture and sound file or two (everything else - the models, the room, everything, was already there from the main game itself). Most of it likely isn't files - it is a few lines of code mixed right in with the hundreds of thousands of other lines, which would be pretty easy to miss unless it was causing a problem elsewhere that sent them looking for it.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:55 am

Y'know, it's pointless to argue with a fanatic. I've asked all sorts of fairly reasonable questions and you havn't bothered to answer a single one of them, Blackhawk. Your best response so far has been the simple "you're wrong" because that finally proved to me that you have no interest in the truth, just being correct. Good day.

knob · Post by **knob** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:23 am

Zurai wrote:
Eduardo X wrote: 17+ means that most teens can't get it. Rockstar did not ship anything "to teens."
Not even close to being true. For example, no online store checks age in any way.

Yeah, but most people who order from an online store have a credit card, too. That's proof of age right there.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:23 am

Grifman wrote: ...didn't/shouldn't Rockstar know that if they left something like this in the game, that someone would find it?
So that leaves us with 2 options - Rockstar left it in there deliberately - or Rockstar was incredibly stupid. Take your choice

Or 3: it would cost more to strip the X-content out to make a new build as EVERYTHING must be re-tested, so they left it in, only disabling it in code.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 am

knob wrote:Yeah, but most people who order from an online store have a credit card, too. That's proof of age right there.

No it's not. It's proof that they have a credit card. It doesn't prove that it's THEIR credit card. At a retail store it's easy to tell - that's what signatures and common sense are for (that 13 year old can't have a credit card because he's not old enough). On an online store, there is no check. If you can borrow a credit card, you can buy anything underage online. That's certainly not within Rockstar's ability to change - but at the same time, they knew their game would be reaching children and they knew their game was shipping with a sex game inside it. 2 + 2 = ?

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:50 am

Kasey Chang wrote: Or 3: it would cost more to strip the X-content out to make a new build as EVERYTHING must be re-tested, so they left it in, only disabling it in code.

If cost were the object, why did they pay to make it in the first place? The answer to that devolves to options 1 or 2 again.

razgon · Post by **razgon** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:10 am

If cost were the object, why did they pay to make it in the first place? The answer to that devolves to options 1 or 2 again.

Rockstar isnt one man - its a company that has a large group of people working on each game. This means, that there are plenty of opportunities for "stuff" to happen in the rather long process of making a game like this. So, it doesnt actually have to be intentional - hey, it could even be an honest mistake that it was left in the game.

Something else that I wondered about that no-one has discussed is, that the game does have have sex in it, as it is - I played it over at a friends house, and in on the of the early missions, you bust into a rival gangs house, and as you open the door, you can clearly see a gang-member getting a BJ from a girl in a room next door. Shouldnt that alone raise the rating to 17+??

oh - and I'm completely ignorant of what makes a game dirty, since I'm danish

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:38 am

Zurai wrote:Y'know, it's pointless to argue with a fanatic. I've asked all sorts of fairly reasonable questions and you havn't bothered to answer a single one of them, Blackhawk. Your best response so far has been the simple "you're wrong" because that finally proved to me that you have no interest in the truth, just being correct. Good day.

I beg pardon, but I've answered every question I've seen. I've resorted to 'you're wrong' because, as you say, it is pointless to argue with a fanatic. I can't dispute your facts because I have no idea what you're basing them on. I'm basing mine on having owned some 450+ games, played most of them, finished about half, a brief stint during which I worked on games from late alpha until release (five of them, from different devs/pubs), and having seen the things I'm talking about first hand. You insist they don't do Thing X. I respond by saying I've seen Thing X a dozen times. You respond by insisting that they don't do Thing X. There's no argument left - you've already pulled the 'you're wrong' at that point.