Hot Coffee anyone

[mikeszekely]

The otherside is, the content is on the freakin disc making it part of the game, per se. This does undermind the ESRB's system and does make Rockstar liable. Rockstar was suppose to say what was on the disc (I'm sure there is something in writing for this) and by omitting some things, you are underminding the ESRB's system. I'm sure this will be the argument and that it will get quite specific.

I read an article about how the ESRB works. As far as I know, the process consists of nothing more than the ESRB rounding up some volunteers to watch a video submitted by the publisher of the games most graphic content. The volunteers do not even play the game.

Are the publishers/developers required to make sure they're not hiding any graphic content in the game? Most likely. Are they required to disclose that they'd worked on a sex themed mini-game, but disabled it and decided to leave it out of the retail version, but that the possibility remains that a modder/hacker could re-enable it? I highly doubt it.

Without a mod or hack, the content is not available in the retail version. Without a mod or hack, naked Sims complete with genetalia are not available in the retail version. The only difference between the two is that the GTA hack uses leftover content on the disc, while the Sims hack has to create new content. In both cases, though, the consumer downloads and applies the hack, so there's essentially no difference to the consumer.

With that in mind, I just don't think a game should be rated or re-rated based on third party hacks and mods, reguardless to whether they used leftover disabled content from the game or created new content from scratch.

[Valkyrie23]

House backs federal investigation of Rockstar Games: some updated comments on Gamespot

Gamespot article

Its just not going away

Edited July 26, 2005 by Valkyrie23

[azrael]

With that in mind, I just don't think a game should be rated or re-rated based on third party hacks and mods, reguardless to whether they used leftover disabled content from the game or created new content from scratch.

314374[/snapback]

As I said, politics. And I agree that the game should not have been re-rated based on disabled content. It's foolish and it's even worst that ma or pa buys this game for little 10-year old Timmy when it has a M rating slapped on the box.

Question. Does the PC version of GTA:SA have a EULA? If there is, there should be a clause about modding/hacking/patching with unauthorized content.

[MGREXX]

House backs federal investigation of Rockstar Games

Gamespot article

Its just not going away

314380[/snapback]

Valkyrie,

I already posted that link, Einstein.

[Effect]

Valkyrie,

I already posted that link, Einstein.

You see, comments like that are the reason why you are on a LOT of people's ignore list and the reason they just might not see the content of your post.

Stop acting like such an ass and maybe that might change but I doubt you have it in you.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Effect

[MGREXX]

Valkyrie,

I already posted that link, Einstein.

You see, comments like that are the reason why you are on a LOT of people's ignore list and the reason they just might not see the content of your post.

Stop acting like such an ass and maybe that might change but I doubt you have it in you.

314389[/snapback]

Well, it's kind of stupid to go into one of MY POSTS and ignore my topic. DUH!!

[Kin]

Valkyrie,

I already posted that link, Einstein.

You see, comments like that are the reason why you are on a LOT of people's ignore list and the reason they just might not see the content of your post.

Stop acting like such an ass and maybe that might change but I doubt you have it in you.

314389[/snapback]

Well, it's kind of stupid to go into one of MY POSTS and ignore my topic. DUH!!

314396[/snapback]

I think Valkyrie wants to point out that the article "is still on Gamespots website" and posted the link again to refer..

Edited July 26, 2005 by Kin

[Valkyrie23]

Valkyrie,

I already posted that link, Einstein.

You see, comments like that are the reason why you are on a LOT of people's ignore list and the reason they just might not see the content of your post.

Stop acting like such an ass and maybe that might change but I doubt you have it in you.

314389[/snapback]

Well, it's kind of stupid to go into one of MY POSTS and ignore my topic. DUH!!

314396[/snapback]

I think Valkyrie wants to point out that the article "is still on Gamespots website" and posted the link again to refer..

314398[/snapback]

Sorry guys, I meant to refer to the update, my post was updated

[Project Phoenix]

Time to sharpen the knives. It's Troll hunting season again.

[Sundown]

*shrugs*

I just don't see it as being all that diffrent.

If you can download the hot coffee mod(either the censor flag tool that leaves you with clothed sex or the full mod that adds code to load the nude models and features a "trainer" feature that leaves you dating all the girls at once), then you could just as easily have pulled down the naked Sims 2 hack(TWO of which are in the top 5 downloads at FilePlanet right now), the naked Quake 3 models(a pack of which is currently the 2nd most popular Q3 download according to FilePlanet), or a # of other hacks and mods.

So IMO, the only argument that really holds water is the cheat device code to flip the bit in the PS2 version.

Well, from the end user perspective it's largely the same, I suppose. Yes. But ESRB is attempting to hold the publisher responsible for what gets on the disk. It's not rating so much on the basis of what you have to do to get porn in your game. It's rating on what porn is or isn't on disk, and whether you're actually buying porn with your game when you purchase it, regardless of whether you actually end up viewing it or not.

And while a sex mod could have been created on the PC by a third party without Rockstar's involvement (although I doubt hackers could have created an entire sex mini-game with all of its complexity by themselves), the console version allows one to access content that wouldn't have been available had not Rockstar put it there in the first place. So who do you hold culpable?

So in GTA's case, a user couldn't ever have simply downloaded a patch to enable the specific content in question on the PC or PS2. And couldn't ever have downloaded a patch to access objectionable content of that complexity and interactivity. The AO rating holds Rockstar accountable to this fact.

I'm just saying...

The industry is riddled with discarded gameplay concepts, half-finished areas, and incomplete minigames. This one just happens to be racier than most.

I know. GTA just happens to be the unique case where the mostly-finished mini-game would actually affect the rating if it had been made available.

In practice, what is the actual difference? The ammount of work the hacker creating the mod has to do. The end result is the same... PC user buys game, installs game, downloads mod, installs mod, and gets to play at sex.

The amount of work a hacker has to do does make an actual difference in practice. The more work a hacker has to do, the long it takes, and the less likely a mod simulating the nuances of sex will be produced and made available. While in theory, the end user would do the same thing-- download the mod, and install said mod... there are very few sex mods of the complexity of GTA's minigame created by third parties. I've never actually encountered one that did more than make characters naked, show naughty clips of people having sex as a video incorporated on some billboard or TV in the game, or fudged with art assets to convey something sexual. I'm not sure how far the Sims II mods go, though.

The ESRB is supposed to rate the content in the retail version of a game. The ESRB shouldn't rate a game based on content deliberately disabled (because actually going through all the code, removing it, and then going back and making sure everything else still works takes a lot longer and is much more work) that requires a hack or mod to access.

Actually, what the ESRB is "supposed" to do is defined by the ESRB itself, not by our high minded ideals of what rating media should or shouldn't involve. So right now, according to the ESRB it's "supposed" to rate games by the content on the disc. The ESRB is holding publishers and developers accountable for how objectable content gets to an end user. If developers want to put naughty bits on a disc that might or might not be accessed, then the disc will be rated accordingly. From now on, the ESRB is also mandating that publishers disclose knowledge of content that might affect the rating, whether it's enabled or not.

Furthermore, I don't think in GTA's case, it was really as complicated to unlock the minigame as Rockstar wants us to believe it was. It's extremely difficult to insert your own code into a compiled binary. More than likely, all of the code was in place, waiting on a flew flags to be turned on. The hackers simply found the right bits and flipped them on.

Simply put, if a developer wants to put stuff on a disc and risk users accessing it, then they're held liable if users find out about it. If they don't want users to access said content, then take it out completely.

From there, games would have to be rated based on potential content from aftermarket modders, which as JB0 already said, would have every game carrying an AO-rating. And that, more than anything Rockstar did, underminds the ESRB's ratings.

ESRB's current policy doesn't even really acknowledge modders, other than the fact that their work might allow existing content to be accessed. If the content is on disc, then it'll be considered in the rating, period. If the content is not there, then it won't. In doing this, they leave behind any of the vaguarities of rating based on "potential content" (a term I initially thought suitable in describing how games might be rated, but now realize the weakness of). Thus, we simply won't have your hypothetical case of every single game being rated as AO simply because it's possible to mod them. We do have games like GTA being rated as AO because actual objectionable content exists in a recognizable form on the disc.

But do you honestly think that the appropriate action was taken? The ESRB took a game that was already rated M for a number of valid reasons, and re-rated it AO for content deliberately disabled that, in depicting sex acts with clothes on, would probably only get a PG-13 rating in a movie.  Sorry, all I see is the ESRB caving to political pressure, and Rockstar suffering as the victim of an anti-gaming lobby.

Honestly? I'm not quite sure what GTA:SA's rating should be. I'm not sure if interactive sex, where you control each thrust, but are yet fully clothed should rate (not to mention that games are rated differently from movies as a whole).

But as easy as it is to spin the ESRB's actions to make it appear as if they're simply caving in to pressure to save their own hinds, and as fun as it is to be cynical about any sort of policing body, I think their motivations go beyond that. The ESRB took decisive action on content that was there, that was produced by the developer, and that was getting to the public albiet through a third party. And I'm guessing that the ESRB took actions because it felt them responsible ones. Yes, it's messy, and yes, it brings up all sorts of questions on what ratings should involve, but in the end the system's improved. The ESRB now requires that publishers disclose hidden content, and have made it clear to them that they will be rated accordingly, so that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future.

And feh, Rockstar is no victim. Rockstar is a game company that's cashed in on our society's fixation with vicarious criminality and sexuality, and has gotten increasingly brazen about what sorts of content it places in its games (albiet good games). While I won't say that they deserve what they got (and it's hard to say that given all of the cash they've still made even after this fiasco), I certainly won't shed many tears for them. Certainly not after how they've attempted to mislead the public through their nebulous statements that anyone with the tiniest bit of technical knowhow could see past, and how they've attempted to dodge even the tiniest bit of responsibility. Rockstar is no victim except to its own brazenness and carelessness. They got cocky, ambivalent, sloppy, and are now paying for it... even if the reaction to what they had done might be a little disproportionate.

-Al

[JB0]

Well, from the end user perspective it's largely the same, I suppose. Yes. But ESRB is attempting to hold the publisher responsible for what gets on the disk. It's not rating so much on the basis of what you have to do to get porn in your game. It's rating on what porn is or isn't on disk, and whether you're actually buying porn with your game when you purchase it, regardless of whether you actually end up viewing it or not.

I'd always understood the ESRB ratings to be based on the content of the game, not the disk.

And the ESRB ACTUALLY exists to prevent some twit in Congress from making legislation to restrict the creative freedom of software developers.

As far as I know, the ESRB ratings are completely voluntary, even among ESA members.

And while a sex mod could have been created on the PC by a third party without Rockstar's involvement (although I doubt hackers could have created an entire sex mini-game with all of its complexity by themselves),

They've turned Quake into a flight sim. This was child's play.

the console version allows one to access content that wouldn't have been available had not Rockstar put it there in the first place. So who do you hold culpable?

Now we get into what I consider a gray area.

Must everything have someone to blame?

IMO, this is (at best) an unfortunate incident with no-one truly worthy of blame.

So in GTA's case, a user couldn't ever have simply downloaded a patch to enable the specific content in question on the PC or PS2. And couldn't ever have downloaded a patch to access objectionable content of that complexity and interactivity. The AO rating holds Rockstar accountable to this fact.

The AO rating penalizes Rockstar for not spending the time to hunt down and delete all code related to an abandoned and incomplete minigame, as is standard industry practice.

And (ignoring the PS2 part) the end user COULD have downlaoded a patch to enable content of that level of complexity.

I'm just saying...

The industry is riddled with discarded gameplay concepts, half-finished areas, and incomplete minigames. This one just happens to be racier than most.

I know. GTA just happens to be the unique case where the mostly-finished mini-game would actually affect the rating if it had been made available.

A. the actual level of completeness is un-determined as of right now. We may have barely scratched the surface of what they originally intended.

B. The key word there is IF.

The ESRB is supposed to rate the content in the retail version of a game. The ESRB shouldn't rate a game based on content deliberately disabled (because actually going through all the code, removing it, and then going back and making sure everything else still works takes a lot longer and is much more work) that requires a hack or mod to access.

Actually, what the ESRB is "supposed" to do is defined by the ESRB itself, not by our high minded ideals of what rating media should or shouldn't involve. So right now, according to the ESRB it's "supposed" to rate games by the content on the disc. The ESRB is holding publishers and developers accountable for how objectable content gets to an end user. If developers want to put naughty bits on a disc that might or might not be accessed, then the disc will be rated accordingly.

As of right now. As of the time San Andreas was submitted for review, the rules ONLY covered content that was actually present in the game.

Furthermore, I don't think in GTA's case, it was really as complicated to unlock the minigame as Rockstar wants us to believe it was. It's extremely difficult to insert your own code into a compiled binary. More than likely, all of the code was in place, waiting on a flew flags to be turned on. The hackers simply found the right bits and flipped them on.

Indeed, to enable the incomplete minigame IS merely the toggling of a single bit.

However, the original hot coffee mod DID include the extra code needed to load the nude models, as well as to start your game with you dating all possible girlfriends.

It's easier to insert code than you make it out to be.

From there, games would have to be rated based on potential content from aftermarket modders, which as JB0 already said, would have every game carrying an AO-rating. And that, more than anything Rockstar did, underminds the ESRB's ratings.

ESRB's current policy doesn't even really acknowledge modders, other than the fact that their work might allow existing content to be accessed. If the content is on disc, then it'll be considered in the rating, period. If the content is not there, then it won't.

Again, this is based on existing rules.

The rules as of San Andreas' submission to the ESRB ONLY considered content that was actually used in the game.

Expecting a title released over a year ago to obey rules put into effect a week ago is absurd.

In doing this, they leave behind any of the vaguarities of rating based on "potential content" (a term I initially thought suitable in describing how games might be rated, but now realize the weakness of). Thus, we simply won't have your hypothetical case of every single game being rated as AO simply because it's possible to mod them. We do have games like GTA being rated as AO because actual objectionable content exists in a recognizable form on the disc.

I see this as a first step.

[Druna Skass]

"Mike Powers" has his crosshairs on The Sims.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_6129609.html

[uPDATE] Miami attorney Jack Thompson claims cheat codes make EA's life sim a pedophile's paradise by showing genitalia; calls for ban on T-rated game.

How do you like your hot coffee? If you're Jack Thompson, you like it scalding game publisher's laps. The Miami attorney and antigaming activist has done his share to see that games don't fall into the wrong hands. And lately, those hands have belonged to almost everyone.

Thompson was among those who spearheaded the recent effort to slap an "Adults Only" rating on Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and he's often been on the forefront of many other gaming issues, several of which have targeted the crime-spree-based GTA franchise. In the past, he's represented defendants who have been the victims of GTA-inspired crimes, including the triple homicide of three police officers by an 18-year-old boy in Alabama.

His beef with San Andreas? Unused code in the game that depicts sexual acts. These minigames can be unlocked by using game-cheat devices or patches available on the Internet.

Thompson is on a roll...and he's not done yet. His latest goat is a game that doesn't involve guns, carjacking, or prostitutes: He's going after Electronic Arts' The Sims 2.

In a manifesto sent today to press outlets, Thompson focuses on dismantling the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and exposing what he calls the industry's "latest dirty little secret." The secret's out now, and it involves nude sims.

In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair."

The Sims 2 is a "life simulator." In the game, players steer their digital beings around their cyberlives. Actions include everything from the spectacular (getting married, having children, receiving promotions at work) to the mundane (cooking microwaved meals, going to the bathroom, mopping the floor). Such activities, as in real life, sometimes require nudity. EA circumvents inappropriateness by "blurring" out the nether regions, almost to a comical sense.

Knowing that the game is popular among all ages, EA has even taken steps to ensure that Sims fans aren't exposed to indecent depictions. In the recent expansion pack, The Sims 2 University, gamers can send their teenage sims off to college. However, instead of packing the expansion with "keggers" and "reefer," EA chose to use juice and bubble blowers.

Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas. In other words, the game was released to the public by the manufacturer knowing that the full frontal nudity was resident on the game and would be accessed by use of a simple code widely provided on the Internet."

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."

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."

Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the game. That's the point. The blur is an admission that even the 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can be disarmed. This is no different than what is in San Andreas, although worse."

[uPDATE] Thompson this afternoon updated his earlier statement, saying he is aware certain mods only remove "the blur," but adds that "Electronic Arts has done nothing about this." Thompson's new conclusion: EA is "cooperating, gleefully, with the mod community to turn Sims 2 into a porn offering."

The last time we checked, The Sims 2 was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, which means that anyone 13 years of age, with $50 to spend, can purchase the game.

By Tim Surette -- GameSpot

POSTED: 07/22/05 12:06 PM PST

[MGREXX]

"Mike Powers" has his crosshairs on The Sims.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_6129609.html

[uPDATE] Miami attorney Jack Thompson claims cheat codes make EA's life sim a pedophile's paradise by showing genitalia; calls for ban on T-rated game.

How do you like your hot coffee? If you're Jack Thompson, you like it scalding game publisher's laps. The Miami attorney and antigaming activist has done his share to see that games don't fall into the wrong hands. And lately, those hands have belonged to almost everyone.

Thompson was among those who spearheaded the recent effort to slap an "Adults Only" rating on Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and he's often been on the forefront of many other gaming issues, several of which have targeted the crime-spree-based GTA franchise. In the past, he's represented defendants who have been the victims of GTA-inspired crimes, including the triple homicide of three police officers by an 18-year-old boy in Alabama.

His beef with San Andreas? Unused code in the game that depicts sexual acts. These minigames can be unlocked by using game-cheat devices or patches available on the Internet.

Thompson is on a roll...and he's not done yet. His latest goat is a game that doesn't involve guns, carjacking, or prostitutes: He's going after Electronic Arts' The Sims 2.

In a manifesto sent today to press outlets, Thompson focuses on dismantling the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and exposing what he calls the industry's "latest dirty little secret." The secret's out now, and it involves nude sims.

In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair."

The Sims 2 is a "life simulator." In the game, players steer their digital beings around their cyberlives. Actions include everything from the spectacular (getting married, having children, receiving promotions at work) to the mundane (cooking microwaved meals, going to the bathroom, mopping the floor). Such activities, as in real life, sometimes require nudity. EA circumvents inappropriateness by "blurring" out the nether regions, almost to a comical sense.

Knowing that the game is popular among all ages, EA has even taken steps to ensure that Sims fans aren't exposed to indecent depictions. In the recent expansion pack, The Sims 2 University, gamers can send their teenage sims off to college. However, instead of packing the expansion with "keggers" and "reefer," EA chose to use juice and bubble blowers.

Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas. In other words, the game was released to the public by the manufacturer knowing that the full frontal nudity was resident on the game and would be accessed by use of a simple code widely provided on the Internet."

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."

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."

Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the game. That's the point. The blur is an admission that even the 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can be disarmed. This is no different than what is in San Andreas, although worse."

[uPDATE] Thompson this afternoon updated his earlier statement, saying he is aware certain mods only remove "the blur," but adds that "Electronic Arts has done nothing about this." Thompson's new conclusion: EA is "cooperating, gleefully, with the mod community to turn Sims 2 into a porn offering."

The last time we checked, The Sims 2 was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, which means that anyone 13 years of age, with $50 to spend, can purchase the game.

By Tim Surette -- GameSpot

POSTED: 07/22/05 12:06 PM PST

314544[/snapback]

Very funny

[mikeszekely]

Question. Does the PC version of GTA:SA have a EULA? If there is, there should be a clause about modding/hacking/patching with unauthorized content.

It does, and IIRC, Rockstar and Take-Two have already said that they're looking at taking legal actions agaist the poor Dutch kid who started this whole mess, as well as Datel (and I think Pelican).

ESRB's current policy doesn't even really acknowledge modders

The operative word there being "currently." "Currently" the ESRB wants developers/publishers to disclose any disabled content on game disc that might affect the rating. When San Andreas was submitted for rating, that wasn't required. And change as made then, forced by a political machine capitalizing on an uninformed public's sense of moral outrage. Should the political machine start on something else, what makes you think that the ESRB won't change the rules again.

Speaking of the political machine...

"Mike Powers" has his crosshairs on The Sims.

I'd actually made a reference to that article before, but I'll thank Druna Skass for drawing everyone's attention to it again, because it illustrates my point fairly well.

And feh, Rockstar is no victim. Rockstar is a game company that's cashed in on our society's fixation with vicarious criminality and sexuality, and has gotten increasingly brazen about what sorts of content it places in its games

I agree, to an extent. I think a lot of what Rockstar included in GTA:SA and Manhunt was downright distasteful. But there was plenty of other content that was included in the retail version of the game that they could have been legitimately taken to task over. By changing the rules to re-rate a game based on disabled content, the ESRB has done more than simply slap Rockstar on the wrist. Their decisions have ramifications on every other publisher and developer in the industry, and there will be further ramifications still in the ESRB continues to change rules to avoid political fallout. And it's those publishers and developers I'm concerned with.

[azrael]

Isn't the nudity in Sims 2 just a skin patch (i.e. Mod)? It's not part of the game content, hidden or otherwise. The skins in Sims 2 are the only skins there and they have blurred out the private parts. If that's what it is... Where's my rocket launcher? I feel the need to frag a certain attorney.

[Druna Skass]

If that's what it is... Where's my rocket launcher? I feel the need to frag a certain attorney.

314610[/snapback]

Either way the guy's a jackass and he lives Florida, we can probably feed him to a shark and make it look like an accident.

[JB0]

Isn't the nudity in Sims 2 just a skin patch (i.e. Mod)?  It's not part of the game content, hidden or otherwise. The skins in Sims 2 are the only skins there and they have blurred out the private parts. If that's what it is... Where's my rocket launcher? I feel the need to frag a certain attorney.

314610[/snapback]

EA politely pointed out to him that if you hack the blur out, you get Barbie and Ken.

He says the blur's existence proves that even Barbie and Ken anughty bits are inappropriate.

...

Strangely, he did NOT proceed to launch a suit against Mattel, who not only makes Barbie and Ken dolls capable of nudity, but ENCOURAGES said state of existence through sales of alternate clothing.

Edited July 27, 2005 by JB0

[Blaine23]

And feh, Rockstar is no victim. Rockstar is a game company that's cashed in on our society's fixation with vicarious criminality and sexuality, and has gotten increasingly brazen about what sorts of content it places in its games (albiet good games). While I won't say that they deserve what they got (and it's hard to say that given all of the cash they've still made even after this fiasco), I certainly won't shed many tears for them. Certainly not after how they've attempted to mislead the public through their nebulous statements that anyone with the tiniest bit of technical knowhow could see past, and how they've attempted to dodge even the tiniest bit of responsibility. Rockstar is no victim except to its own brazenness and carelessness. They got cocky, ambivalent, sloppy, and are now paying for it... even if the reaction to what they had done might be a little disproportionate.

No offense, but you're letting your personal distaste for their games affect your opinion on Rockstar's guilt/innocence in this matter.

The mod enables something that you would NOT be able to see otherwise. It doesn't matter if it's 99% done or just nude 3D models of characters - the politicians would be on the witchhunt regardless. Because that's what they do and it riles up Tammy and Cletus Walmart shoppers the world over and gets them in the press.

My biggest question about the whole stupid thing is this -

Does anyone in their right mind think that someone who could download and execute the Hot Coffee Mod for GTA: SA correctly is someone who simply couldn't download tons and tons and tons of hardcore internet pornography featuring far more disturbing content?

To be quite honest, I'd be more worried about my kid downloading Rocco Ravages Prague than I would be concerned about them seeing a video game character get laid.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Tammy and Cletus Walmart shoppers

I plan to use this new name every time I have to mention walmart. Pure gold.

As for this whole debacle, I've already voiced my opinion but I still feel this is nothing more than the common "moral outrage" generated by a government trying to draw the public's attention away from the things we really should be worried about and focus it on things that make it look like they are actually doing something in washington rather than sucking up our tax dollars.

Sigfried and Roy and the US Congress have two things in common, they can draw your attention away from things long enough to pull a few tricks and they look creepy in sequened spandex jumpsuits.

[azrael]

He says the blur's existence proves that even Barbie and Ken anughty bits are inappropriate.

...

Strangely, he did NOT proceed to launch a suit against Mattel, who not only makes Barbie and Ken dolls capable of nudity, but ENCOURAGES said state of existence through sales of alternate clothing.

*Bangs head on table* I know, let's just make a game where the guy and girl are having sex with their clothes on. Would that be more appropriate? Or better yet, just black out the scene and make the character run around humping everything until it finds the girl. Then you have your pr0n and you won't offend anybody since you can't see a thing.

Does anyone in their right mind think that someone who could download and execute the Hot Coffee Mod for GTA: SA correctly is someone who simply couldn't download tons and tons and tons of hardcore internet pornography featuring far more disturbing content?

I think we mentioned this a page or 2 back.

[Pat Payne]

The mod enables something that you would NOT be able to see otherwise.  It doesn't matter if it's 99% done or just nude 3D models of characters - the politicians would be on the witchhunt regardless.  Because that's what they do and it riles up Tammy and Cletus Walmart shoppers the world over and gets them in the press.

But, Blaine, the problem is not that the content is there, IMHO. It is not illegal to have a game that has simulated sex (it's illegal to sell it to minors, but that's a different story), and yes, leaving vestigial code on a disc is a common practice in the game industry. But Rockstar flat-out-lied about the content. They said, at first, that it wasn't their responsibility, that they had no part in the creation of "Hot Coffee," that it was completely the work of some Dutch hacking circle trying to sully the reputation of their game. It wasn't until GameSpot found the same content on a non-modifiable PS2 disc and made the discovery public that Rockstar changed their story and told something closer to the truth. Even now, I'm not sure we know the whole story. If they lied so blatantly about this, what else aren't they telling us?

My biggest question about the whole stupid thing is this -

Does anyone in their right mind think that someone who could download and execute the Hot Coffee Mod for GTA: SA correctly is someone who simply couldn't download tons and tons and tons of hardcore internet pornography featuring far more disturbing content?

Of course not. All a kid has to do to get any kind of porn imaginable is go into an AOL, Yahoo or IRC chatroom, and it's there for the asking. But still, parents had bought this game on the condition that the content they were purchasing was what they wanted the kid to see (assuming good parenting skills, which may be my Waterloo). Knowing that Hot Coffee even exists changes that perception for some parents, who don't care about violence, but go berserk at one boob. Not to mention that the blue-pencil brigade is now coming out of the woodwork to denounce any video game that comes into its target sights. Remember how, after the "Wardrobe Malfunction" last year there was a massive upsurge in FCC prosecutions for heretofore ignored content?

To be quite honest, I'd be more worried about my kid downloading Rocco Ravages Prague than I would be concerned about them seeing a video game character get laid.

314702[/snapback]

"Rocco Ravages Prague?" I don't even wanna know...

Edited July 27, 2005 by Pat Payne

[Blaine23]

But, Blaine, the problem is not that the content is there, IMHO. It is not illegal to have a game that has simulated sex (it's illegal to sell it to minors, but that's a different story), and yes, leaving vestigial code on a disc is a common practice in the game industry. But Rockstar flat-out-lied about the content. They said, at first, that it wasn't their responsibility, that they had no part in the creation of "Hot Coffee," that it was completely the work of some Dutch hacking circle trying to sully the reputation of their game. It wasn't until GameSpot found the same content on a non-modifiable PS2 disc and made the discovery public that Rockstar changed their story and told something closer to the truth. Even now, I'm not sure we know the whole story. If they lied so blatantly about this, what else aren't they telling us?

My question back is - what else could they not tell you? A ritual that calls forth demons? A simulation of donkey-rape? Plans for pipe bombs? It doesn't matter how poorly RockStar has handled the PR on this, the fact is that content requires a hacked mod to get into locked content.

I think it's pretty obvious that Rockstar developers considered making an adult version of the game then decided against it and locked away the content. Their intent seems completely non-malicious.

To make an analogy, this is the same as having a kid find a hidden Playboy in a locked box hidden deep in a basement. The Playboy requires intent and significant skill to get at and was obviously not intended to be shown to a child. Would such a person be considered guilty?

"Rocco Ravages Prague?" I don't even wanna know...

314719[/snapback]

I'll just say it's an awful lot more graphic than the silly CJ sex scene. But then again, so is 99% of the freakin internet.

[Druna Skass]

As far as I'm concered this whole thing is just stupid as hell. Some of these ignorant-ass parents need to wake up and smell the expresso. I see all kinds of straight up nudity in R rated movies and I don't see this kind of shitstorm following it around.

There shouldn't even be anything wrong with sex and nudity in video games. First off games like this aren't even directed at kids. Secondly this country is so bent on coddleing it's kids that gotten to the point that anytime kids and something "mature" common sence goes out the window. They should change the ratings to be like the ones used in movies, that way parents would be more familiar with it. Instead of M they should just use R.

Video games don't make people violent, it's utter bullshit like this that make people violent, I just want to knock some of these retards the hell out.

There is something seriously wrong with this society if violence is more accepted than something natural like a naked person or sex. Honestly I'd rather a kid saw some softcore porno (have to draw the line somewhere) than Kill Bill or Saving Pvt. Ryan.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Druna Skass

[MGREXX]

HEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you say lawsuit. Things are getting good now!!!!!!!

Gamespot Link

[Sundown]

They've turned Quake into a flight sim. This was child's play.

Bad comparison. Quake has it's own publicly documented scripting language, SDK, compiler, and built from the beginning to be easily moddable. I could more easily write a flight sim in Quake than I can even begin to tack on a mini-game of any sort into something like GTA.

Indeed, to enable the incomplete minigame IS merely the toggling of a single bit.

However, the original hot coffee mod DID include the extra code needed to load the nude models, as well as to start your game with you dating all possible girlfriends.

It's easier to insert code than you make it out to be.

Inserting actual lines of code-- additional instructions to what was already compiled in the binary-- is much harder than you suggest. It is possible however to intercept calls and that sort of thing, or hack into DLL's, but the work is not trivial either.

From your description, it sounds like the original mod simply toggled a few more additional bits, and perhaps changed the file pointers and filenames in the compiled binary to load nude models and/or textures instead of the clothed ones-- no new lines of code would even be needed. This is a moderately trivial hack, at least compared to adding extra code or crafting a minigame out of thin air and getting it to still work within the original game. It's pretty apparent that the Hot Coffee modders didn't do much more than find the right places to poke and poke them, and make a few name or index changes in a hex editor. All of Rockstar's talk about modders having to decompile, recompile, and insert complex code is rubbish to obfuscate the issue.

The AO rating penalizes Rockstar for not spending the time to hunt down and delete all code related to an abandoned and incomplete minigame, as is standard industry practice.

Actually, more accurately, the AO rating penalizes Rockstar for not having the foresight to consider that it might not be a good idea to leave objectionable material that could change a rating on the gold master. It's not some giant undertaking to remove incomplete code. We software engineers do this on a very regular basis, and it's pretty routine.

Expecting a title released over a year ago to obey rules put into effect a week ago is absurd.

I don't know what the ESRB's stance on hidden content was prior to this incident, but games have been re-rated in the past. And I don't know if the ESRB reserves the right to re-rate based on clarification of policy and new information and that all ratings are potentially in flux, but apparently they think they do.

Now I'm curious as to what the ESRB would have rated GTA had Rockstar disclosed the hidden content to them. It would have given Rockstar more ground to stand on. Alas, we'll never know.

At any rate, the ESRB doesn't see itself as simply setting rules that publishers have to meet in order to achieve a certain rating for marketability. If that were true, then expecting an old title to meet criteria for a rating set today would be absurd. However, the ESRB also feels responsible for making customers aware of the actual content in a box that might be accessed. Under this principle, their perogative to re-rate a game based on what comes to light about the content on disc makes a little more sense.

Their decisions have ramifications on every other publisher and developer in the industry, and there will be further ramifications still in the ESRB continues to change rules to avoid political fallout. And it's those publishers and developers I'm concerned with.

I'm not. The ESRB's clarification of policy seems reasonable to me, and I don't think rule changes are inherently a bad thing. If publishers don't want to get in trouble, don't freaking put porn on the disc. It really is that simple. If the ESRB starts making unreasonable requests, then I'll show concern... but it's too early to say that the sky is falling-- that the ESRB bends to every whim of the anti-gaming lobby.

Why? Because, I dunno... somehow in my addled thinking, holding developers accountable for the junk they let get on the disc that people do get at seems to make a whole lot of sense. Whether they should or shouldn't be getting at it, and whether the users have to break an agreement they don't even read to get at it is beside the point. Personally, I think the new rule changes are good ones. They clarify things and don't allow for vaguarities and misunderstandings that allow this sort of thing to happen in the first place. And hopefully they'll make changes of policy less necesary in the future.

No offense, but you're letting your personal distaste for their games affect your opinion on Rockstar's guilt/innocence in this matter.

The mod enables something that you would NOT be able to see otherwise. It doesn't matter if it's 99% done or just nude 3D models of characters - the politicians would be on the witchhunt regardless. Because that's what they do and it riles up Tammy and Cletus Walmart shoppers the world over and gets them in the press.

Actually I don't find the game itself as distasteful as Rockstar's attitude in general. Like I've detailed in the last several pages, I don't have any real opinions of Rockstar's "innocence or guilt" outside of their dishonesty to the media and public about what responsibility they had in the content getting there. I certainly don't believe them to be attempting subverting the rating system.

For what it's worth, I'm actually extremely apathetic to what befalls Rockstar as a result of the controversy that they're at the center of. Whatever happens is at least partly the result of their own doing and practices, so I don't see them either as a victim nor as them deserving punishment for making questionable games. I simply think that rating content for what's actually on a disc and holding developers accountable for what allow on them isn't crazy talk. If it costs Rockstar money to be held accountable, well sucks a little bit to be them. *shrug*

-Al

[Druna Skass]

Here is what happens when natural selection is not allowed to take place...

According to the AP, plaintiff Florence Cohen claims she was "damaged" after learning of the sex minigames hidden in San Andreas, as she had bought what she thought was an M-for-Mature-rated game for her grandson.

The stupid people are able to breed...

[azrael]

Time for some food for thought:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

[JKeats]

Azrael, nice post and a great read. I heard an interview with Steven Johnson on NPR a while back; pretty interesting guy.

I don't really agree with how he started comparing low crime rates to the rise in video game popularity (or maybe he did this on purpose to show how ridiculous it is to equate video game popularity with the things Hillary Clinton is accusing them of) but overall he hit on a lot of good points and I think everyone here agrees with him in one way or another.

[JB0]

He says the blur's existence proves that even Barbie and Ken anughty bits are inappropriate.

...

Strangely, he did NOT proceed to launch a suit against Mattel, who not only makes Barbie and Ken dolls capable of nudity, but ENCOURAGES said state of existence through sales of alternate clothing.

*Bangs head on table* I know, let's just make a game where the guy and girl are having sex with their clothes on.

They did. It's called Hot Coffee.

They've turned Quake into a flight sim. This was child's play.

Bad comparison. Quake has it's own publicly documented scripting language, SDK, compiler, and built from the beginning to be easily moddable. I could more easily write a flight sim in Quake than I can even begin to tack on a mini-game of any sort into something like GTA.

Meh. I just assumed Quake 1's setup was somewhat limited in what it allowed.

IE: 2D motion plz kthx.

Indeed, to enable the incomplete minigame IS merely the toggling of a single bit.

However, the original hot coffee mod DID include the extra code needed to load the nude models, as well as to start your game with you dating all possible girlfriends.

It's easier to insert code than you make it out to be.

Inserting actual lines of code-- additional instructions to what was already compiled in the binary-- is much harder than you suggest. It is possible however to intercept calls and that sort of thing, or hack into DLL's, but the work is not trivial either.

And yet people do it on a somewhat regular basis.

See http://donut.parodius.com/

From your description, it sounds like the original mod simply toggled a few more additional bits, and perhaps changed the file pointers and filenames in the compiled binary to load nude models and/or textures instead of the clothed ones-- no new lines of code would even be needed.

Found the readme: http://grandtheftauto.filefront.com/file/H...offee_Mod;44662 (warning, contains minigame screenshots).

As I don't have the game, I don't know how accessable the files that had to be replaced are.

This is a moderately trivial hack, at least compared to adding extra code or crafting a minigame out of thin air and getting it to still work within the original game. It's pretty apparent that the Hot Coffee modders didn't do much more than find the right places to poke and poke them, and make a few name or index changes in a hex editor. All of Rockstar's talk about modders having to decompile, recompile, and insert complex code is rubbish to obfuscate the issue.

I'm not arguing Rockstar wasn't full of it.

Just saying it was mroe than flipping a few bits.

The AO rating penalizes Rockstar for not spending the time to hunt down and delete all code related to an abandoned and incomplete minigame, as is standard industry practice.

Actually, more accurately, the AO rating penalizes Rockstar for not having the foresight to consider that it might not be a good idea to leave objectionable material that could change a rating on the gold master.

Again, under the ESRB rules in effect at the time, it HAD NO EFFECT ON THE RATING.

It's not some giant undertaking to remove incomplete code. We software engineers do this on a very regular basis, and it's pretty routine.

*shrugs*

The game industry has a diffrent take on the matter.

Expecting a title released over a year ago to obey rules put into effect a week ago is absurd.

I don't know what the ESRB's stance on hidden content was prior to this incident,

The rules only governed content actually IN the game, as opposed to on the disk.

but games have been re-rated in the past.

Which ones?

As far as I know, they didn't even change things when KA was replaced with E. So there were games out there with a totally invalid rating.

Now I'm curious as to what the ESRB would have rated GTA had Rockstar disclosed the hidden content to them.

They'd've probably given them odd looks because there weren't any rules for disabled features or discarded gameplay concepts.

At any rate, the ESRB doesn't see itself as simply setting rules that publishers have to meet in order to achieve a certain rating for marketability. If that were true, then expecting an old title to meet criteria for a rating set today would be absurd. However, the ESRB also feels responsible for making customers aware of the actual content in a box that might be accessed. Under this principle, their perogative to re-rate a game based on what comes to light about the content on disc makes a little more sense.

That's their official stance as of the re-rating of GTA:SA, which was primarily a political move intended to save face as people started screaming(on national TV) that they were impotent, ineffectual, incompetent, and a whole slew of other untrue accusations.

Like I said, it's not why they were created, nor why companies pay the fees to get their software rated(of I recall, it's a couple hundred dollars per review).

[Sundown]

Meh. I just assumed Quake 1's setup was somewhat limited in what it allowed.

IE: 2D motion plz kthx.

I thought Quake 1 was always in 3d. And programming 3d movement in what was already a 3d graphical engine is pretty straightfoward, even from scratch. So long as you have access to the code, scripts, and SDK that lets you made modifications on where to place the camera and player entity, of course.

And yet people do it on a somewhat regular basis.

See http://donut.parodius.com/

Not sure what I was supposed to see on that page, but if you're talking about adding functionality to old, simple, 2d sprite based games which are programmed in assembly to start with, sure, it's possible. But doing the same with a very complex game programmed in a natural language and compiled to a binary is a little bit removed. I can't recall one single binary executable hack that adds notable additional functionality which wasn't already in the binary in some form, by way of extra code, for a title of moderate complexity on the PC for the last 5-10 years. *shrug*

Which ones?  As far as I know, they didn't even change things when KA was replaced with E. So there were games out there with a totally invalid rating.

I don't know offhand, but the ESRB interview alludes to this having occured, although no games have ever had their entire rating changed, because the content in question was only enough to change the content descriptor, not the rating category.

I don't know how replacing one rating with another makes the old one invalid and worthless, in so far as letting the customer know what's in the box if they at least understand the general implications of the older rating. That's was its primary job, right?

It's not some giant undertaking to remove incomplete code. We software engineers do this on a very regular basis, and it's pretty routine.

*shrugs*

The game industry has a diffrent take on the matter.

The game industry doesn't pile on every uncompleted feature and leave trash on the disk just because they can. That's just bad development no matter where you come from. More than likely, they leave in debugging tools and unpolished functionality primarily for their own amusement, as easter eggs, for debugging, or if they believe development will continue at some later time, like you've suggested.

So what I'm trying saying here is that cleaning up code is just as common a thing as leaving something in. Rockstar's mistake was that they didn't choose to clean up something that might affect the rating, and it's not a foregone conclusion that just because Rockstar made a sex minigame, given the industry's practice, it thus would have ended up on the disc. It's on the disc because they were careless with something they should have been careful about, and their cavalier attitude about leaving explicit sexual content on a disc for a game unrated for such lead to thier decisions. As software engineers, it was entirely within their power, practice, and routine to either leave it in or take it out. They chose poorly.

Like I said, it's not why they were created, nor why companies pay the fees to get their software rated(of I recall, it's a couple hundred dollars per review).

Then why was the ESRB created, and for what purpose are its ratings, if not for the customer to understand what's in the box they're buying? Serious question, I really don't know. Because it seems that you're suggesting the ESRB primarily exists to serve some purpose outside of actually letting folks know what's in a game, and that this end isn't or shouldn't be its ultimate goal, and thus its ratings shouldn't be slavishly tied to the principle of keeping customers informed-- but to some other ideal of setting rules and stamping boxes and then being forever done with it, based on the rules and policies of a given time-- that these ratings should then be immutable regardless of what comes to light about what a customer is actually taking home, who put it there, whether it's accessible, and how available the means to do so are, so long as the developer didn't mean for it to be seen.

I guess we just simply disagree in principle on how things should be rated, even if I'm not yet firm on what GTA's rating should actually be.

-Al

[JB0]

Meh. I just assumed Quake 1's setup was somewhat limited in what it allowed.

IE: 2D motion plz kthx.

I thought Quake 1 was always in 3d. And programming 3d movement in what was already a 3d graphical engine is pretty straightfoward, even from scratch. So long as you have access to the code, scripts, and SDK that lets you made modifications on where to place the camera and player entity, of course.

Point.

And yet people do it on a somewhat regular basis.

See http://donut.parodius.com/

Not sure what I was supposed to see on that page, but if you're talking about adding functionality to old, simple, 2d sprite based games which are programmed in assembly to start with, sure, it's possible. But doing the same with a very complex game programmed in a natural language and compiled to a binary is a little bit removed. I can't recall one single binary executable hack that adds notable additional functionality which wasn't already in the binary in some form, by way of extra code, for a title of moderate complexity on the PC for the last 5-10 years. *shrug*

Mostly translations.

For software with severe space restrictions, poorly-understood hardware, and often arcane, bizarre, and blatantly evil compression schemes that have to be reverese-engineered before they can even get the script out.

While I'm not actually involved in any of the projects, I do talk to people that are.

Anything by Enix is, traditionally, a bitch and a half to hack, as they implement random, arbitrary, and complex compression schemes seemingly on a whim.

They may have plenty of ROM space left over, and use a compression scheme that doesn't actually reduce the script size much, but they do it anyways.

On the other hand, the first PS1 translation was embarassingly easy, as all the text was stored in uncompressed images, so it was more a photoshop job than a proper hack.

ANYWAYS...

Which ones?  As far as I know, they didn't even change things when KA was replaced with E. So there were games out there with a totally invalid rating.

I don't know offhand, but the ESRB interview alludes to this having occured, although no games have ever had their entire rating changed, because the content in question was only enough to change the content descriptor, not the rating category.

Ah well...

I don't know how replacing one rating with another makes the old one invalid and worthless, in so far as letting the customer know what's in the box if they at least understand the general implications of the older rating. That's was its primary job, right?

IMO, and I realize this is debated, the new rating isn't actually telling the customer what's in the box, as much as what could potentially be on the screen.

To me it's like rating Mario Paint AO because it has flesh tones in the color pallete.

It's also something of an over-reaction, again IMO. I don't see the "new content" warranting a change in rating.

It's not some giant undertaking to remove incomplete code. We software engineers do this on a very regular basis, and it's pretty routine.

*shrugs*

The game industry has a diffrent take on the matter.

The game industry doesn't pile on every uncompleted feature and leave trash on the disk just because they can. That's just bad development no matter where you come from. More than likely, they leave in debugging tools and unpolished functionality primarily for their own amusement, as easter eggs, for debugging, or if they believe development will continue at some later time, like you've suggested.

Given they're usually permanently disabled at the end, easter eggs seems unlikely(most elaborate I can think of now is the PS FF and Xenogears "debug rooms" that require GameShark codes to unlock, though more primitive debug code exists still active in older games such as Sonic the Hedgehog).

And generally, development doesn't continue later, at least not for console software. I think you're referring to my hypothesized AO release, which I figured would be a simultaneous release.

Speaking of Sonic, Sonic 2 had chunks of inaccessable map because they were running behind on the development cycle, and had to scrap some intended features to get back on track.

Some of those map areas were later unlocked and expanded upon with the Sonic and Knuckles cartridge. Others are still present in the ROM, but are parts of levels that were discarded, and are thus inaccessable through normal play.

Sonic 3 has some similar areas, but it's debatable if those were leftovers, or intentional hooks for Sonic and Knuckles, given the much closer release dates between the two(early and late 94 as opposed to late 92 and late 94).

Perhaps more importantly, Sonic 2 had known glitches that would occasionally get you stuck in walls, forcing you to wait until the level timer expired and you died. The solution was to put a page in the manual informing you that Dr. Robotnik had "set traps" to exploit Sonic's speed.

So what I'm trying saying here is that cleaning up code is just as common a thing as leaving something in. Rockstar's mistake was that they didn't choose to clean up something that might affect the rating, and it's not a foregone conclusion that just because Rockstar made a sex minigame, given the industry's practice, it thus would have ended up on the disc.

I was just saying that the industry often(but not always) leaves things in, so it wasn't evidence of malicious intent.

They chose poorly.

*imagines Rockstar employees rapidly aging, shrivelling up, and mummifying*

Like I said, it's not why they were created, nor why companies pay the fees to get their software rated(of I recall, it's a couple hundred dollars per review).

Then why was the ESRB created, and for what purpose are its ratings, if not for the customer to understand what's in the box they're buying? Serious question, I really don't know.

As I said, it was all politics. They were trying to shut up the people throwing hissy fits about the sex and violence in video games, and stave off government censorship.

If I recall, Mortal Kombat and Night Trap brought things to the boiling point

Because it seems that you're suggesting the ESRB primarily exists to serve some purpose outside of actually letting folks know what's in a game,

While it IS quite effective in that regard(in fact, the Federal Trade Comission did a review back in 2k2 that basically boiled down to "The MPAA and RIAA could learn a lot from the IDSA"), that's not REALLY why it was created.

A few companies, such as Sega, had already come out with their own ratings systems at that point, and part of the reason the ESRB ratings are as they are today is because the IDSA didn't want to be seen as "playing favorites" by picking one ratings system over another, though their categories line up exactly with Sega's(GA=KA/E, MA13=T, MA17=M).

Interestingly(buit totally off-topic), Sega's rating system was stricter than the ISDA's(perhaps because Night Trap had left them skittish), and games featuring MA-17 content under Sega's rules got Ts under the ESRB.

and that this end isn't or shouldn't be its ultimate goal, and thus its ratings shouldn't be slavishly tied to the principle of keeping customers informed-- but to some other ideal of setting rules and stamping boxes and then being forever done with it, based on the rules and policies of a given time-- that these ratings should then be immutable regardless of what comes to light about what a customer is actually taking home, who put it there, whether it's accessible, and how available the means to do so are, so long as the developer didn't mean for it to be seen.

I STILL maintain that the M rating was more accurate than the AO rating, as the "hot coffee" game is not actually "in the game," despite its presence on the disk.

I view it as closer to blaming Rockstar for 3rd-party mods than to holding Rockstar accountable for subversion of the system.

The discussion of the rules at a given time is only because certain people keep blaming Rockstar for subverting the rules as they exist now.

But the rules as they exist now weren't subverted, as they weren't the rules of 2 weeks ago, much less a year ago, and it seems unfair to blame Rockstar for breaking rules that didn't exist when they were "broken."

I guess we just simply disagree in principle on how things should be rated, even if I'm not yet firm on what GTA's rating should actually be.

Guess so.

[mikeszekely]

As far as I'm concered this whole thing is just stupid as hell. Some of these ignorant-ass parents need to wake up and smell the expresso. I see all kinds of straight up nudity in R rated movies and I don't see this kind of shitstorm following it around.

Exactly. Should the fact that one medium is passive, and the other interactive, allow for more graphic imagery in the passive medium? Perhaps, but it's a stretch to really say that the Hot Coffee mod is anything truly graphic, given that the participants are clothed. Why not just say they're cuddling, and call the "pleasure meter" a "femenine sense of affection and well-being meter?"

I think it's worth mentioning that God of War also has a sex mini-game, that's actually IN the game (no hacks or mods required). And unlock San Andreas, God of War actually has plenty of nude female breasts.

And yet, God of War gets to keep it's M-rating...

Florence Cohen claims she was "damaged" after learning of the sex minigames hidden in San Andreas, as she had bought what she thought was an M-for-Mature-rated game for her grandson.

This begs the question, who old is her grandson? If he's under 17, why was she buying an M-rated game for him? And if he's older than 17, seriously, how much damage could possibly have been done?

And this is, of course, assuming her grandson even downloaded and installed the Hot Coffee mod.

Why? Because, I dunno... somehow in my addled thinking, holding developers accountable for the junk they let get on the disc that people do get at seems to make a whole lot of sense. Whether they should or shouldn't be getting at it, and whether the users have to break an agreement they don't even read to get at it is beside the point. Personally, I think the new rule changes are good ones. They clarify things and don't allow for vaguarities and misunderstandings that allow this sort of thing to happen in the first place. And hopefully they'll make changes of policy less necesary in the future.

Well, the way I see it, a game should be rated for what's actually in the retail part of the game. If the user breaks the EULA (which is enforceable, whether it was actually read or not) to change the playable content of the game, be it with an original mod or by finding a way to access leftovers on the disc, then it's on the users head.

IMO, and I realize this is debated, the new rating isn't actually telling the customer what's in the box, as much as what could potentially be on the screen.

To me it's like rating Mario Paint AO because it has flesh tones in the color pallete.

It's also something of an over-reaction, again IMO. I don't see the "new content" warranting a change in rating.

Exactly.

[Skull Leader]

wow... it's getting intense reading through all these posts! I've long since stepped away from the debate, but I've tried to stay on this. I know I said different before, but JB0 is officially banned from ever using the "quote" or "bold" functions again! LOL (Mike is a close runner up).

Seriously though... a lot of valid points, keep it up!

[Sundown]

Mostly translations.

For software with severe space restrictions, poorly-understood hardware, and often arcane, bizarre, and blatantly evil compression schemes that have to be reverese-engineered before they can even get the script out.

Anything by Enix is, traditionally, a bitch and a half to hack, as they implement random, arbitrary, and complex compression schemes seemingly on a whim.

They may have plenty of ROM space left over, and use a compression scheme that doesn't actually reduce the script size much, but they do it anyways.

Ah gotcha. Translations, as difficult as they are, are still a world of difference from adding new gameplay mechanics, scenes, and interactive content written from scratch. Sounds to me that one "simply" needs to decipher the file format, much like how many folks have hacked into various texture formats in other games, then reencode new translated data. It's not easy, but it's still a far cry from inserting minigames that weren't there, as no new routines need to be implemented and inserted. Hacking into data files is a whole lot more doable than altering an executable's instructions in a significant manner because data files tend to have some semblance of structure and format. By spotting repetition and patterns, you can start to have an idea on how the data's organized.

Code in a binary executable looks like gibberish in a hex editor and non-sensical when disassembled, and the volume to parse through is unwieldy in today's games and application. Assembly is extremely difficult to decipher unless you have good references of what you're looking at. Like the actual source code.

*imagines Rockstar employees rapidly aging, shrivelling up, and mummifying*

*cackles* Last Crusade?

I STILL maintain that the M rating was more accurate than the AO rating, as the "hot coffee" game is not actually "in the game," despite its presence on the disk.

I view it as closer to blaming Rockstar for 3rd-party mods than to holding Rockstar accountable for subversion of the system.

The discussion of the rules at a given time is only because certain people keep blaming Rockstar for subverting the rules as they exist now.

Well, I do agree that Rockstar probably wasn't trying to subvert the system. And I don't feel like the rating was changed simply to blame Rockstar, although they do end up footing the bill. It's unfortunate for Rockstar, yeah... but hey... psst. Don't put porn on the disc if the box says there ain't none. At least things'll be more clear cut on this sort of thing from here on out.

Why not just say they're cuddling, and call the "pleasure meter" a "femenine sense of affection and well-being meter?"

They. Are. SO. NOT. Cuddling. O_o If they were then guys would be a lot more eager when their girlfriends "just want to cuddle."

And again, I'm really curious if the M version of Leisure Suit Larry can be hacked to the AO version. If it can, then we can point at the ESRB as being unfair if it doesn't re-rate LSL alongside. And if it can't, then it does show that at least one company is aware of the pitfalls of putting porn on a disc that doesn't carry the AO rating.

Heh, thanks for going at length with me on this JB0 and Mike. Swell of ya.

-Al

Edited July 28, 2005 by Sundown

[JB0]

wow... it's getting intense reading through all these posts! I've long since stepped away from the debate, but I've tried to stay on this. I know I said different before, but JB0 is officially banned from ever using the "quote" or "bold" functions again! LOL (Mike is a close runner up).

Seriously though... a lot of valid points, keep it up!

315037[/snapback]

The quote ninja will never be slowed down.

...

Well, as soon as Invision fixes the 10 quote tag limit...

Mostly translations.

For software with severe space restrictions, poorly-understood hardware, and often arcane, bizarre, and blatantly evil compression schemes that have to be reverese-engineered before they can even get the script out.

Anything by Enix is, traditionally, a bitch and a half to hack, as they implement random, arbitrary, and complex compression schemes seemingly on a whim.

They may have plenty of ROM space left over, and use a compression scheme that doesn't actually reduce the script size much, but they do it anyways.

Ah gotcha. Translations, as difficult as they are, are still a world of difference from adding new gameplay mechanics, scenes, and interactive content written from scratch. Sounds to me that one "simply" needs to decipher the file format, much like how many folks have hacked into various texture formats in other games, then reencode new translated data. It's not easy, but it's still a far cry from inserting minigames that weren't there, as no new routines need to be implemented and inserted.

Actually, new routines often ARE implemented and inserted, such as variable-width fonts.

And deciphering the "file format" can involve an awful lot of work.

Hacking into data files is a whole lot more doable than altering an executable's instructions in a significant manner because data files tend to have some semblance of structure and format. By spotting repetition and patterns, you can start to have an idea on how the data's organized.

Unless it's compressed. That mucks everything up.

Also note that when working with a ROM image, there's no clear delineation between data and code, and they can in fact be intermingled.

Code in a binary executable looks like gibberish in a hex editor and non-sensical when disassembled, and the volume to parse through is unwieldy in today's games and application.

As does the data in your typical console game.

Assembly is extremely difficult to decipher unless you have good references of what you're looking at. Like the actual source code.

And a ROM image is nothing but uncommented assembly code.

*imagines Rockstar employees rapidly aging, shrivelling up, and mummifying*

*cackles* Last Crusade?

You chose... wisely.

I STILL maintain that the M rating was more accurate than the AO rating, as the "hot coffee" game is not actually "in the game," despite its presence on the disk.

I view it as closer to blaming Rockstar for 3rd-party mods than to holding Rockstar accountable for subversion of the system.

The discussion of the rules at a given time is only because certain people keep blaming Rockstar for subverting the rules as they exist now.

Well, I do agree that Rockstar probably wasn't trying to subvert the system. And I don't feel like the rating was changed simply to blame Rockstar, although they do end up footing the bill. It's unfortunate for Rockstar, yeah... but hey... psst. Don't put porn on the disc if the box says there ain't none. At least things'll be more clear cut on this sort of thing from here on out.

They were clear-cut before. They were just in the other direction.

And as Mike pointed out, God of War contains content in the actual game that's more graphic than anything GTA has, but got an M anyways.

So it appears disabled clothes sex is more offensive than enabled nekkid sex.

*shrugs*

Heh, thanks for going at length with me on this JB0. Swell of ya.

My pleasure.

Edited July 28, 2005 by JB0