NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently it's confirmed that the Hot Coffee Sex mod did not alter the game source code and it was in the PS2, Xbox, and PC versions all this time.

I'm pretty sure that in the weeks or even days to come, we'll be seeing some lawsuits and bankruptcy claims from Rockstar due to them being forced to rate GTA:SA as "Adults Only" and thus major retailors will refuse to sell the game.

Bad day when the soccer moms in Washington win.

Dammit! What the hell is these Soccer mom's fuckin problem!? Next thing y'know the only game ratings we'll have will be AO (adults only) and E (everyone). This is fucked up.

Hold on a sec--if Rockstar put something in the game and hid it hoping that they wouldn't have to put a higher rating on it, then no one is to blame but them. They knew the rules and broke them, and now they're going to pay for it.

Now I'm no big fan of ratings systems, especially if they're applied unevenly, as they usually are, but that's a different argument. Rockstar is the one who fucked up here.

Hold on a sec--if Rockstar put something in the game and hid it hoping that they wouldn't have to put a higher rating on it, then no one is to blame but them. They knew the rules and broke them, and now they're going to pay for it.

Now I'm no big fan of ratings systems, especially if they're applied unevenly, as they usually are, but that's a different argument. Rockstar is the one who fucked up here.
Ooo I thought this was about that mod. If they put it in the game, then it's their fault. But soccer mom's still piss me off.

Hold on a sec--if Rockstar put something in the game and hid it hoping that they wouldn't have to put a higher rating on it, then no one is to blame but them. They knew the rules and broke them, and now they're going to pay for it.

Now I'm no big fan of ratings systems, especially if they're applied unevenly, as they usually are, but that's a different argument. Rockstar is the one who fucked up here.
It was in the game, but the code was never meant to be activated, you need a mod to see it. So they didn't really break the rules.

It was in the game, but the code was never meant to be activated, you need a mod to see it. So they didn't really break the rules.
If it was never meant to be activated, why have it in there?


Rockstar knew what they were doing when they added in that functionality. They've sown the wind, they'll reap the whirlwind.

so its okay to kill women if your a teenager,
but only okay to have sex with them if your over 21.

i see....

If it was never meant to be activated, why have it in there?


Rockstar knew what they were doing when they added in that functionality. They've sown the wind, they'll reap the whirlwind.
It was probably going to be in the game at first, but then they realised it would make their rating higher, so they deactivated it.

It was probably going to be in the game at first, but then they realised it would make their rating higher, so they deactivated it.

Makes sense, if it was left in till late in the development, when, I'd guess, it'd take too much time and effort to take out, and likely delay the release date.

Frankly, I think the ESRB needs to just piss off. If 'rents really cared, they'd get involved, play the games first, talk to the kids about why they agreed/disagreed with the "morals" of the game, and why they believed their child shouldn't play it.

Just because it's there doesnt mean that it's Rockstar's fault when it gets shown. If parents dont want their kids to see the effects of the mod, then it's the parents' responsibility to restrict their child's access to the net and disallow the mod to be downloaded.

If Rockstar had intended for the scenes to be part of the game, there would not be a need for a mod. That there is a need for a mod that has to be downloaded somewhere other than Rockstar's website to make the game obscene, the responsibilty lies with the parents and any site allowing the "hot coffee" mod to be downloaded, not Rockstar's.

Makes sense, if it was left in till late in the development, when, I'd guess, it'd take too much time and effort to take out, and likely delay the release date.

Frankly, I think the ESRB needs to just piss off. If 'rents really cared, they'd get involved, play the games first, talk to the kids about why they agreed/disagreed with the "morals" of the game, and why they believed their child shouldn't play it.
No, Rockstar wouldn't bother risking it if they didn't want it seen. They're part of the group of game makers that don't rush things out the door, they finish things when they finish things.

And for the PS2 version, apparently you need a long line of codes in order to unlock this game.

Hardley a pornographic AO-rating-worthy game if you need to go through all this trouble.

No, Rockstar wouldn't bother risking it if they didn't want it seen. They're part of the group of game makers that don't rush things out the door, they finish things when they finish things.
Well the PC and Xbox versions were pretty damn highly anticipated. They probably WERE rushed up until the last minute to finish the game and release it at the release date.

Well the PC and Xbox versions were pretty damn highly anticipated. They probably WERE rushed up until the last minute to finish the game and release it at the release date.
They had plenty of time when they were porting it to remove the code. It would just take up space, which is something you don't want to do, especially on a computer.

They had plenty of time when they were porting it to remove the code. It would just take up space, which is something you don't want to do, especially on a computer.
Well, even if they did purposely put it there, that doesn't change the fact that the only way to run it is with a mod, so it's still not Rockstart's fault.

Well, even if they did purposely put it there, that doesn't change the fact that the only way to run it is with a mod, so it's still not Rockstart's fault.
Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game. It is accessable, without drastically modifying the game itself.

so its okay to kill women if your a teenager,
but only okay to have sex with them if your over 21.

i see....

lol!

Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game. It is accessable, without drastically modifying the game itself.
It doesn't really matter how much the game is modified. Someone could make a mod for any game adding a sex scene to it, and it would be just as easy to download and use. Having the code already there just makes it easier for the modder.

Why put a higher rating on a game, if you cant access the parts that warrant the higher rating? Its insanity.

Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game. It is accessable, without drastically modifying the game itself.
But does that warrant an AO rating? I think not.

Its like putting a bomb in a car and having the consumer go out and buy the detonators. The bomb shouldn't have been included by the manufacturer unless they wanted people to explode. Also, its kinda funny that a company named Rockstar gets into a sex scandal, just seems pretty appropriate.......

I find it kind of disturbing, and sad really, that the sex in it (sex that you have to have a modification to see) is seen as worse/more controversial than the very substantial violence (that is at the heart of the game).

Seriously, it baffles me that all the routine, cold-blooded violence is okay, or at least not too much of an issue, but a mod-unlocked sex scene makes it inappropriate. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Its like putting a bomb in a car and having the consumer go out and buy the detonators. The bomb shouldn't have been included by the manufacturer unless they wanted people to explode. Also, its kinda funny that a company named Rockstar gets into a sex scandal, just seems pretty appropriate.......
Yea, but there is also a rating system that says on the outside of the car whether or not the car will explode, and since there is no detonator the bomb shouldn't go off unless you tamper with it. So the car shouldn't say that it will explode on the outside.

EDIT: I also find it pretty funny that you use the phrase "wanted people to explode" while referring to a sex scene :P

I find it kind of disturbing, and sad really, that the sex in it (sex that you have to have a modification to see) is seen as worse/more controversial than the very substantial violence (that is at the heart of the game).

Seriously, it baffles me that all the routine, cold-blooded violence is okay, or at least not too much of an issue, but a mod-unlocked sex scene makes it inappropriate. Seems a bit backwards to me.
Actually, this game has been the center of attention of politicians since it came out on the PS2.

"This game is implying that it is okay to kill LAPD officers!"
"This game is enforcing a negative Africa-American stereotype!"
"This game supports gangs and drug use and murder!"
"This game supports mindless sex with it's (UHOH!) prostitutes"

They just found the big red button in the last couple of weeks with the mod.

"This game is implying that it is okay to kill LAPD officers!"
OH GEE, I CAN KILL POLICE ON A GAME SO IT'S OKAY TO ACTUALLY DO IT
[/what the ESRB thinks kids are like]

OH GEE, I CAN KILL POLICE ON A GAME SO IT'S OKAY TO ACTUALLY DO IT
[/what the ESRB thinks kids are like]
Mommy, for my 12th birthday, can I buy a ho?

...The CRAP they imply kids are thinking...I swear.

Fuck the video games. It ain't the music or the movies or the games. Whatever happened to JUST PLAIN CRAZY?

Well, we all know that no one's responsible for their actions anymore. It's all the fault of societal influences - whether it be music, movies or games...

Well, we all know that no one's responsible for their actions anymore. It's all the fault of societal influences - whether it be music, movies or games...
Oh of course. All children are perfect little angels unless they play video games or listen to violent music.

Well, we all know that no one's responsible for their actions anymore. It's all the fault of societal influences - whether it be music, movies or games...
It wouldn't surprise me if one day we examine what kind of music, movies, and video games suicide bombers enjoyed before they decided to blow themselves up.


Yep, once they release that study you can basically might as well hand the entire industry back to Nintendo. Because there sure as hell won't be a violent video game that won't be equated to terrorism.

It wouldn't surprise me if one day we examine what kind of music, movies, and video games suicide bombers enjoyed before they decided to blow themselves up.
Just to mess with their minds, I'm gonna play Secret Agent Barbie for 4 weeks straight, then kill 20 people.

Actually, this game has been the center of attention of politicians since it came out on the PS2.

"This game is implying that it is okay to kill LAPD officers!"
"This game is enforcing a negative Africa-American stereotype!"
"This game supports gangs and drug use and murder!"
"This game supports mindless sex with it's (UHOH!) prostitutes"

They just found the big red button in the last couple of weeks with the mod.

Yeah, I know people have been griping about it sinc the last two came out, but why is this the "big red button?" Why is graphic sex so much worse than graphic violence?

Yeah, I know people have been griping about it sinc the last two came out, but why is this the "big red button?" Why is graphic sex so much worse than graphic violence?
Because if kids see sex in a video game they'll go right out and do it.

Yeah, I know people have been griping about it sinc the last two came out, but why is this the "big red button?" Why is graphic sex so much worse than graphic violence?
It's pretty much because the sex is so explicit in the game.

What the fuck is wrong with people? It's just sex. I don't know how, but somehow sex and nudity have become the big 'evil' of society today. Blowing people up is okay. Filling them with bullets or decapitating them or snapping their necks is okay. Running around with nothing but a skimpy bikini on is okay. But the moment that nipple pops out, or there's even a minor sex scene, it's the end of the world...

Yeah, I know people have been griping about it sinc the last two came out, but why is this the "big red button?" Why is graphic sex so much worse than graphic violence?It isn't in Germany, actually...

I find it kind of disturbing, and sad really, that the sex in it (sex that you have to have a modification to see) is seen as worse/more controversial than the very substantial violence (that is at the heart of the game).

Seriously, it baffles me that all the routine, cold-blooded violence is okay, or at least not too much of an issue, but a mod-unlocked sex scene makes it inappropriate. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Jackie: You can’t let DJ watch that movie! Its rated R.
Roseanne: Just for violence.
*laugh track*

It's pretty much because the sex is so explicit in the game.And the violence isn't?

Because if kids see sex in a video game they'll go right out and do it.

Will they? I never went and had sex after seeing it on a screen. I'm not arguing that Rockstar games shouldn't have completely removed the code instead of just deactivating it, but I'm just arguing that getting so worked up about sex is odd compared to the violence in the game. Personally, I don't much care about either. I've played GTA 1, GTA 3 and GTA Vice City, and found them to be fun. If you can't distinguish between video games and real life, something's wrong in your head.

I still think it's silly to make a big deal out of this when the game is already infamous for its violence.

sorry to be an ignorant chap, but what is this hot coffee sex mod

Will they? I never went and had sex after seeing it on a screen. I'm not arguing that Rockstar games shouldn't have completely removed the code instead of just deactivating it, but I'm just arguing that getting so worked up about sex is odd compared to the violence in the game. Personally, I don't much care about either. I've played GTA 1, GTA 3 and GTA Vice City, and found them to be fun. If you can't distinguish between video games and real life, something's wrong in your head.

I still think it's silly to make a big deal out of this when the game is already infamous for its violence.

But we have to lower everything to the level of the lowest denominator. :rolleyes:

And the violence isn't?
What would you pay more attention to, boring LAPD officers getting shot down, or a guy banging a chick?

I'd pay more attention to the sex myself. I don't know about you. And I think everyone else understands that sex isn't the same as violence and that is why they are treated rather differently.

There's actually a rather funny South park episode where the kids cut up Butters' eyeball and Cartman flashes in front of TV camera. The kids got off the hook for the Butters accident and instead the parents focused on punishing Cartman for the sex act.

Eh, made no sense but it's exactly how it goes on. I'm just telling it like it is. Not like I understand it myself.

The main cultural difference I've noticed between Germans and Americans is the attitudes toward sex and violence. In America, sex seems to be the big sin, while violence is downplayed. In Germany, I sometimes don't bother watching some movies until they get rerun at a later hour because so much gets cut out (I had no idea what happened to the one marine that ate the chemical in the Rock until I saw it in English). It's perfectly alright to see naked or barely clothed people during the day on German channels, though sex scenes are only allowed after 20:00.

What would you pay more attention to, boring LAPD officers getting shot down, or a guy banging a chick?

I'd pay more attention to the sex myself. I don't know about you. And I think everyone else understands that sex isn't the same as violence and that is why they are treated rather differently.Perhaps because everyone takes violence for commonplace... its completely different in German culture actually.

"... hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by combining, reconstituting, and altering the game's source code... we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered,"

Source - http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10037

The game shouldnt be in the hands of kids anyhow.

The game shouldnt be in the hands of kids anyhow.It shouldn't be, but unfortunately, most parents don't bother to monitor what their kids play, even occasionally, and they don't even read (or frequently even understand) the ratings.

How old do you have to be to buy AOs? In England ours are 18's so it is adults only technically.

It shouldn't be, but unfortunately, most parents don't bother to monitor what their kids play, even occasionally, and they don't even read (or frequently even understand) the ratings.

So...lets just have 2 ratings...one that requires an adult to purchase the game and the other to let anyone purchase the game. Why mess with all the rest if they're not going to be paid attention to?

Yeah, I know people have been griping about it sinc the last two came out, but why is this the "big red button?" Why is graphic sex so much worse than graphic violence?

Because if people replicate sex its far more dangerous than replicating violence! Cant get worse than sex now can we! :D

Because if people replicate sex its far more dangerous than replicating violence! Cant get worse than sex now can we! :DIs it the same in Britain or is Germany the only European country where its the other way round..?

I wanted to go have sex right after I played GTA:SA...

I wanted to for about 13 years before that, too.

Is it the same in Britain or is Germany the only European country where its the other way round..?

Well graphic violence is still tolerated more here. You know its probably worse in Germany because they have a violent culture. A history and elite based on war and now I hear you get school massacres as well - Dont think there has ever been an English school massacre.

I wanted to for about 13 years before that, too.
How old were you when you first wanted to have sex then? :confused:

Well graphic violence is still tolerated more here. You know its probably worse in Germany because they have a violent culture. A history and elite based on war and now I hear you get school massacres as well - Dont think there has ever been an English school massacre.
We've had one massacre really... but graphic violence is really taboo here. The media always pick on "violent computer games" whenever something like that comes up.
Actually, I have a rather weak stomache for an American, but compared to Germans, I have nerves of steel when it comes to graphic violence.

Makes sense, if it was left in till late in the development, when, I'd guess, it'd take too much time and effort to take out, and likely delay the release date.

Frankly, I think the ESRB needs to just piss off. If 'rents really cared, they'd get involved, play the games first, talk to the kids about why they agreed/disagreed with the "morals" of the game, and why they believed their child shouldn't play it.

I agree with the latter part of your judgment, but I still think there should be a "heads up" list on the box. It's just that the ESRB doesn't get the concept of ideas like 'severity' and 'context'.

Because if people replicate sex its far more dangerous than replicating violence! Cant get worse than sex now can we! :D

Well, these people are probably simple enough to think "monkey see, monkey do", and are concerned that such actions will lead to more Americans.

How old do you have to be to buy AOs? In England ours are 18's so it is adults only technically.

Well, being a society where the states are still given the right to establish their own ages of majority, it could be anything from seventeen to twenty-one.

How old were you when you first wanted to have sex then? :confused:

Well, i've wanted sex since I understood the concept...not sure when that was. I know I've wanted to be with specific girls since at least 6, but I assume I was interested even before that.

So...lets just have 2 ratings...one that requires an adult to purchase the game and the other to let anyone purchase the game. Why mess with all the rest if they're not going to be paid attention to?It would cause more trouble than we already have. What if it has a large amount of (not too graphic or gory) violence? In the currently existing system, it'd probably be rated Teen, but what do you do when there's no gray, only black and white? It's too violent to be for everyone, but not violent enough to be for adults only, so there's two likely scenarios:

1. All games that are not acceptable for everyone are classified as adult only, and as a result you can't get a game with even minor swearing until you're 18.
2. A large amount of games that aren't completely acceptable for everyone are labeled as such because they don't feel it's anywhere near the level of an adult only game, and soon people notice about this and complain to friends/politicians, likely resulting in heavy restrictions on games.

The currently existing system works just fine, it's just that people need to be educated about it, preferably with a clue-by-four.

The game shouldnt be in the hands of kids anyhow.
Why not? I've played the game quite extensively, and I don't feel the urge to go out and kill people, I'm not making pipe bombs in my garage, it didn't affect me at all.

Apparently it's confirmed that the Hot Coffee Sex mod did not alter the game source code and it was in the PS2, Xbox, and PC versions all this time.

I'm pretty sure that in the weeks or even days to come, we'll be seeing some lawsuits and bankruptcy claims from Rockstar due to them being forced to rate GTA:SA as "Adults Only" and thus major retailors will refuse to sell the game.

Bad day when the soccer moms in Washington win.
Actually...Rockstar has already made production cost many times over just with how many copies they sold for the PS2 (by the way, remember GTA:SA came out on PS2 1 week before Halo 2 on Xbox, in Halo 2's first week (GTA:SA's second), Halo 2 outsold GTA:SA (not by much) but by Halo 2's second week and GTA:SA's third week, GTA:SA had outsold Halo 2 (and that's for purchases in that week, not cumalative))...not to mention the majority of sales of a game are done in the first few weeks it's out, especially when it's been out on one system for a long time already...which means while San Andreas could still sell more PC and XBox copies...it's pretty much already made the bulk of its profit. Probably enough to cover the lawsuits without going into bankruptcy.

NOW, keep this in mind. GTA series is done by Rockstar NORTH. The Rockstar company makes a lot of games and isn't exactly "one company." Even if Rockstar "NORTH" claims bankruptcy...Rockstar, the parent company, can still fund a GTA project on PS3, and will be more careful with the ratings system...and have another stellar success...and North will be back out of bankruptcy.

Don't believe me? Watch.

There'll be another GTA game. Don't worry. It's not like the people who play this game are going to quit buying it because it got in trouble with uber-politicians...in fact, that'll probably bolster sells of the next game...

NOT TO MENTION, my copy of GTA:San Andreas is worth a whole lot more now...

Regardless...probably what will really happen is that Rockstar North will make some sort of settlement, pay a fine, remove current copies from the shelve, and ship out a fixed version of the game that removed the questionable content so it can maintain the M rating...

Either way, my copy of the game has the bad material in it...so in a few years, I could probably sell it on Ebay for at least the price I payed for it, simply because it will now be impossible to get.

Frankly, I think the ESRB needs to just piss off. If 'rents really cared, they'd get involved, play the games first, talk to the kids about why they agreed/disagreed with the "morals" of the game, and why they believed their child shouldn't play it.

You must be joking. Do you realize that Rockstar touted the fact that the game takes a minimum of 150 hours of play to complete? Thats at a minimum, it doesnt take into account all possible side quests and hidden areas, or the difficulty you may have getting past certain sections and having to do them over and over repeatedly until you get it right. Do you honestly believe any parent should be expected to do this?

Let us assume that a parent decides they would like to play the game before they let their kid play it, they are able to set aside 2 hours a day to play this game and somehow miraculously manage to finish the game in the 150 hour minimum. This means it will take them 75 days to complete the game. Suppose that the graphic sex scene is one of the final scenes in the game, this means that on day 70 the parent decides their child cannot play this game. Now, at this point the warranty period is over and the game cannot be returned to the store. Therefore, the parents wasted 140 hours of their lives playing a game they did not like, and $70 purchasing a product no one in their household is going to enjoy.

Then there is this scenario. Somehow the parents decide to play the game all the way through and miraculously complete it in the minimum amount of time. After 75 days of game play, they decide their kids can play the game. But the kid doesnt take the easy minimum path, he takes a side quest which causes him to run into the graphic sex scene.

As you can see, what you propose is ridiculous. There is a reason that we need ratings and its because no one can be expected to explore every nook and cranny of a game before letting their kids play it and because it is prefferable to know the contents of the product you are buying before you decide to make a purchase.

You must be joking. Do you realize that Rockstar touted the fact that the game takes a minimum of 150 hours of play to complete? Thats at a minimum, it doesnt take into account all possible side quests and hidden areas, or the difficulty you may have getting past certain sections and having to do them over and over repeatedly until you get it right. Do you honestly believe any parent should be expected to do this?

Let us assume that a parent decides they would like to play the game before they let their kid play it, they are able to set aside 2 hours a day to play this game and somehow miraculously manage to finish the game in the 150 hour minimum. This means it will take them 75 days to complete the game. Suppose that the graphic sex scene is one of the final scenes in the game, this means that on day 70 the parent decides their child cannot play this game. Now, at this point the warranty period is over and the game cannot be returned to the store. Therefore, the parents wasted 140 hours of their lives playing a game they did not like, and $70 purchasing a product no one in their household is going to enjoy.

Then there is this scenario. Somehow the parents decide to play the game all the way through and miraculously complete it in the minimum amount of time. After 75 days of game play, they decide their kids can play the game. But the kid doesnt take the easy minimum path, he takes a side quest which causes him to run into the graphic sex scene.

As you can see, what you propose is ridiculous. There is a reason that we need ratings and its because no one can be expected to explore every nook and cranny of a game before letting their kids play it and because it is prefferable to know the contents of the product you are buying before you decide to make a purchase.

Except that a mod has to be downloaded and intstalled for the sex scenes to be shown. Something that is quite easy to block on the home computer, all it takes is a little bit of paying attention. Now, since those sex scenes cant be seen, all it really takes is a good hour or so for the parent to get a good feel for what's going to happen in the game. And of course, there's nothing that says a parent can't watch their child play from time to time to ensure nothing new pops up - that's part of good parenting, or at least, I thought it was. The definition of good parenting seems to continually drift more towards letting the kid do what he/she wants and then blaming society when it goes wrong...but that's just my take on it...

Except that a mod has to be downloaded and intstalled for the sex scenes to be shown. Something that is quite easy to block on the home computer, all it takes is a little bit of paying attention. Now, since those sex scenes cant be seen, all it really takes is a good hour or so for the parent to get a good feel for what's going to happen in the game. And of course, there's nothing that says a parent can't watch their child play from time to time to ensure nothing new pops up - that's part of good parenting, or at least, I thought it was. The definition of good parenting seems to continually drift more towards letting the kid do what he/she wants and then blaming society when it goes wrong...but that's just my take on it...

I think you might see a backlash against the semi-nanny state that has been set up as our generation, raised by warning labels and rating systems, will resent the hands-off approach to parenting seen so often and take a more active role in our children's lives.

Except that a mod has to be downloaded and intstalled for the sex scenes to be shown. Something that is quite easy to block on the home computer, all it takes is a little bit of paying attention. Now, since those sex scenes cant be seen, all it really takes is a good hour or so for the parent to get a good feel for what's going to happen in the game. And of course, there's nothing that says a parent can't watch their child play from time to time to ensure nothing new pops up - that's part of good parenting, or at least, I thought it was. The definition of good parenting seems to continually drift more towards letting the kid do what he/she wants and then blaming society when it goes wrong...but that's just my take on it...

I wasnt talking about this game in specific, I was reacting to a dumb statement about how there should simply be no ESRB. It is very likely that the scene people are arguing about was meant to appear in the game but was pulled at the last minute. Suppose they had not pulled that scene, how is a parent to know that there will be graphic sex in this game if the label does not inform them? Briefly reviewing the game or playing it for an hour or two will reveal plenty of violence, which the parents may be ok with, but would not reveal the graphic sex hidden in further areas of the game. My statement still stands, it is ridiculous to expect parents to explore every nook and cranny of a game before letting their kids play it. ESRB ratings are a good thing, they better inform consumers about the contents of the product they are considering so they can make a more informed decision about whether they should buy it or not.

Why it is when a computer game has sex bits, people complain but when you can around killing things it's OK?

Sex scenes? What the fuck? GTA some sex noises and the picture of a house, sex noises and a car bobbing up and down. thats about as hardcore as it gets. You can worse than that on late night tv and most kids have tv and video recorder in their room.

I wasnt talking about this game in specific, I was reacting to a dumb statement about how there should simply be no ESRB. It is very likely that the scene people are arguing about was meant to appear in the game but was pulled at the last minute. Suppose they had not pulled that scene, how is a parent to know that there will be graphic sex in this game if the label does not inform them? Briefly reviewing the game or playing it for an hour or two will reveal plenty of violence, which the parents may be ok with, but would not reveal the graphic sex hidden in further areas of the game. My statement still stands, it is ridiculous to expect parents to explore every nook and cranny of a game before letting their kids play it. ESRB ratings are a good thing, they better inform consumers about the contents of the product they are considering so they can make a more informed decision about whether they should buy it or not.

I love the ESRB. it’s a non for profit organization that the video game voluntarily uses because it knows that ultimate improves consumer confidence in their products, thus increasing sales.

Why it is when a computer game has sex bits, people complain but when you can around killing things it's OK?

They’ve complained about both.

They’ve complained about both.

Well, the previous GTA games were pretty violent in the first place.
They well knew what kind of game it is in first place.

Sex scenes? What the fuck? GTA some sex noises and the picture of a house, sex noises and a car bobbing up and down. thats about as hardcore as it gets. You can worse than that on late night tv and most kids have tv and video recorder in their room.

Except, if you'd paid any attention to this controversy, the game included several thousand lines of code that could be unlocked with a third-party mod, that depicted graphic, hardcore sex.

Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game. It is accessable, without drastically modifying the game itself.

And, what entitles you, or any other person EXCEPT the game creator, from determining what is 'allowed' within game code?

Just because you 'don't like it'... that's not a good enough reason to say it shouldn't be allowed in... ESPECIALLY when that content is protected, such that it is NOT available WITHOUT modifying the purchased product.

Just for those who haven't seen what the fuss is about:

http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1913.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1914.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1915.png

Source Page: http://www.gtasanandreas.net/news/single.php?id=1469

Just for those who haven't seen what the fuss is about:

http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1913.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1914.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1915.png

Source Page: http://www.gtasanandreas.net/news/single.php?id=1469

Hmm. Fully clothed hardcore sex.

And, what entitles you, or any other person EXCEPT the game creator, from determining what is 'allowed' within game code

Its not that it shouldn’t be allowed, its that the game creators should tell people what content they can expect in the game.

You must be joking. Do you realize that Rockstar touted the fact that the game takes a minimum of 150 hours of play to complete? Thats at a minimum, it doesnt take into account all possible side quests and hidden areas, or the difficulty you may have getting past certain sections and having to do them over and over repeatedly until you get it right. Do you honestly believe any parent should be expected to do this?

Let us assume that a parent decides they would like to play the game before they let their kid play it, they are able to set aside 2 hours a day to play this game and somehow miraculously manage to finish the game in the 150 hour minimum. This means it will take them 75 days to complete the game. Suppose that the graphic sex scene is one of the final scenes in the game, this means that on day 70 the parent decides their child cannot play this game. Now, at this point the warranty period is over and the game cannot be returned to the store. Therefore, the parents wasted 140 hours of their lives playing a game they did not like, and $70 purchasing a product no one in their household is going to enjoy.

Then there is this scenario. Somehow the parents decide to play the game all the way through and miraculously complete it in the minimum amount of time. After 75 days of game play, they decide their kids can play the game. But the kid doesnt take the easy minimum path, he takes a side quest which causes him to run into the graphic sex scene.

As you can see, what you propose is ridiculous. There is a reason that we need ratings and its because no one can be expected to explore every nook and cranny of a game before letting their kids play it and because it is prefferable to know the contents of the product you are buying before you decide to make a purchase.

The game, as purchased, DOES NOT contain the material that is being discussed, except in 'encoded form'.... it cannot be played as is.

You can download a mod, perhaps... but that doesn't make the AS SOLD product in violation of the rating... any more than the oft mentioned 'naked Sim' mods really make The Sims any more explicit.... you can ONLY affect the 'rating' of the game through your OWN interference.

Except, if you'd paid any attention to this controversy, the game included several thousand lines of code that could be unlocked with a third-party mod, that depicted graphic, hardcore sex.

thats basically kids downloading porn off the internet which is gunna happen whever the game is banned or not.

thats basically kids downloading porn off the internet which is gunna happen whever the game is banned or not.

Only...it's easier to DL porn off the net than it was to hack the game...

Its not that it shouldn’t be allowed, its that the game creators should tell people what content they can expect in the game.

First: You might want to re-read the comment I replied to:

"Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game."

Which is very much, about what should be 'allowed', no?

Second: The game creators HAVE told people what content they can expect - UNLESS the product is modified from it's 'As Sold' format.

If I pour sugar in my gas-tank, I have changed the 'as sold' product of my car, and shouldn't be too surprised if it 'plays' differently. In this allegory, we are punishing the car manufacturer for including the facility for in-tank-sugaring, even though they SOLD the car unsugared, and have never endorsed the sugaring of the gas-tank.

As a programmer myself, it's often easier simply to deactivate but not delete code from a system. So most of the time, deactivated code is not accessible via normal means.

The game, as purchased, DOES NOT contain the material that is being discussed, except in 'encoded form'.... it cannot be played as is.

You can download a mod, perhaps... but that doesn't make the AS SOLD product in violation of the rating... any more than the oft mentioned 'naked Sim' mods really make The Sims any more explicit.... you can ONLY affect the 'rating' of the game through your OWN interference.

I already addressed this, take a look at post 64. I was not talking about this case, I was rebutting a ridiculous argument against the ESRB as a whole that was made by someone else (whom I quoted).

I already addressed this, take a look at post 64. I was not talking about this case, I was rebutting a ridiculous argument against the ESRB as a whole that was made by someone else (whom I quoted).

I saw that post... but it does not alter what you had PREVIOUSLY posted... since your PREVIOUS post (the one I replied to) specifically talks about the GTA game within the framework of the rating debate... and contains a factual error, also... that being, there ARE no hardcore sex scenes... in ANY sub-plots, UNLESS you set out to deliberately modify the game.

Yes, the material MAY be buried in the code... but it can NEVER be played... UNLESS you 'break' the 'as sold' product, in some fashion.

I saw that post... but it does not alter what you had PREVIOUSLY posted... since your PREVIOUS post (the one I replied to) specifically talks about the GTA game within the framework of the rating debate... and contains a factual error, also... that being, there ARE no hardcore sex scenes... in ANY sub-plots, UNLESS you set out to deliberately modify the game.

Yes, the material MAY be buried in the code... but it can NEVER be played... UNLESS you 'break' the 'as sold' product, in some fashion.

I was using it as an example of what could happen under this persons ridiculous claim that a parent should play the game to figure out what it contains. I didnt mean to infer that this is actually in the game. The game is a good example because it contains 150+ hours of gameplay with many subplots and hidden areas. I did say suppose the sex scene was near the end of the game. Of course, this requires that you use your imagination because we all know it isnt really there, but that's why I said suppose.

I was using it as an example of what could happen under this persons ridiculous claim that a parent should play the game to figure out what it contains. I didnt mean to infer that this is actually in the game. The game is a good example because it contains 150+ hours of gameplay with many subplots and hidden areas. I did say suppose the sex scene was near the end of the game. Of course, this requires that you use your imagination because we all know it isnt really there, but that's why I said suppose.

Parents SHOULD play the games... the rating system shouldn't be taken as gospel... since different people have very different ideas about what is 'suitable' for certain demographic groupings.

A casual play-through of any of the GTA games will quickly show that the game is heavily-orientated around theft and death... and this SHOULD be a fairly good indicator of the suitability (in the mind of the parent) for their OWN children.

The rating given is based on THOSE factors, and also any sexuality, use of language, etc... and so should be fairly reliable (as assigned) - but should NOT replace parental governance.

The rating for the Rockstar game is 'fair' and honest, because there IS none of the 'objectionable' sexuality in the game - unless you alter it.

I fail to see how you 'imagining' a sex scene in the game is helpful, valid, or even pertinent to the topic of discussion.

I agree with you that ignoring the rating system completely is unreasonable, but it is just as unreasonable to replace parental concern with an externally applied rating system.

Yes, the material MAY be buried in the code... but it can NEVER be played... UNLESS you 'break' the 'as sold' product, in some fashion.

That just reminded me of something. Don’t video games some with a little warranty book that says if you alter the game all warrantees and guarantees are void?

That just reminded me of something. Don’t video games some with a little warranty book that says if you alter the game all warrantees and guarantees are void?

I think most come with fairly extensive protections, of just that kind... often along with comprehensive 'consumer safety warnings', and other protections. Most PC games actually require you to sign a license agreement, or some such document, also.

But, it looks like the Fascist nanny-state is trying to overturn the assumption that, by accepting a guidelined product, and signing licensing material, etc, you are somehow obligated to have actually read or expressed consent to, any of the material.

'Let the buyer beware' is turning into 'Big Brother'...

What? why are people blaming rockstar for this? is the age rating on the game not 18!? if anyone should be blamed, it should be these "Socer" mums what ever the hell they are, for giving a game to a minor!, its just idiotic! Its 18 for a reason!

That just reminded me of something. Don’t video games some with a little warranty book that says if you alter the game all warrantees and guarantees are void?
Yeah, third party hacks and things like this are in violation of the EULA, not that most companies ever complain about it, but its there to save their asses which probably won't work this time since everyone is gunning for blood, and they won't be using baseball bats

How old do you have to be to buy AOs? In England ours are 18's so it is adults only technically.

Damn straight! This won't affect us at all. It's already over 18 compulsary. So we don't really have to worry.

Apparently it's confirmed that the Hot Coffee Sex mod did not alter the game source code and it was in the PS2, Xbox, and PC versions all this time.

I'm pretty sure that in the weeks or even days to come, we'll be seeing some lawsuits and bankruptcy claims from Rockstar due to them being forced to rate GTA:SA as "Adults Only" and thus major retailors will refuse to sell the game.

Bad day when the soccer moms in Washington win.

Didn't Best Buy sell Manhunt? And I would think that all this would do would be to shift the sales figures to online retailors. After all. If you make something like this just a little harder to get, but make it sooooo taboo, well you just make people want it that much more. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rockstar come out with GTA's even faster. I'd like to see simultaneous release of GTA IV, GTA Vice City II, and GTA SA II, but I suppose that's asking a bit much. Grand Theft Auto Belfast anyone?

Meh, in the UK its an 18 rated game, so nobody cares here. Actually, as far as i can see, nobody cares much outside the US.

O_O I didn't hear about it being in the PS2 version, /me goes off to pop in GTA

And also, lets not forget, lazy fuck parental groups here in the US are really uptight about actually having to raise their kids. That's why there is so much controversy about this. They even filed with teh FCC against ABC for not cencoring Live 8, what kind of crap is that?

Apparently it's confirmed that the Hot Coffee Sex mod did not alter the game source code and it was in the PS2, Xbox, and PC versions all this time.

I'm pretty sure that in the weeks or even days to come, we'll be seeing some lawsuits and bankruptcy claims from Rockstar due to them being forced to rate GTA:SA as "Adults Only" and thus major retailors will refuse to sell the game.

Bad day when the soccer moms in Washington win.

1. The "mod" is for the PC version: Does not work for the Xbox or PS2 versions.
2. It's unclocking code, that while it exists; is not accessible without the modification.
3. Anybody who sues RockStar; should be commited to a mental institution.

Bah, the controversy is just going to sell MORE games. Rather a clever publicity ploy, and they had to do very little and pay nothing to do it!

Except it is, as it has no business being in the code of the game. It is accessable, without drastically modifying the game itself.

You're a computer illiterate.... It's a code snippet activated third party; It was likely part of "ideas" in development that were locked out at release time; likely because they would have made the rating too high for their intended market. You cannot hold companies responsible for third-party use.... And this applies here... It is LOCKED code; not part of the actual game; which requires active intervension to modify for access.

Your argument is as idiotic as arguments that an appliance manufacturer is responsible for a consumer who sticks a fork into a toaster-oven, and gets electricuted...

Any parent that presses suit against Rockstar; should have their kids taken away by DSS...

Well, of course sex horrifies Americans... what would you expect from a culture founded by religious puritanical nutjobs who were overzealous enough to get booted out of Europe? ;)

Hmm. Fully clothed hardcore sex.

I've seen "worse" in the Leisure Suit Larry games.

I've seen "worse" in the Leisure Suit Larry games.

Leisure Suit Larry! Woot...

Leisure Suit Larry I : In the Land Of The Lounge Lizards... [Sierra On-Line, Original; AGI Version; Later SCI 2.0 VGA version remake]

Leisure Suit Larry II : Goes Looking For Love (In Several Wrong Places) [SCI 1.0 version, EGA/MCGA]

Leisure Suit Larry III : Passionate Patty in Pursuit of The Pulsating Pectorals [SCI 1.1 version, EGA/MCGA]

Leisure Suit Larry IV : The Search For The Lost Floppy Disks (j/k)
[The Laffer Utilities 4.0]

Leisure Suit Larry V : Passionate Patty Does A Little Undercover Work [Sierra On-Line, SCI 2.0 version, VGA...]

Leisure Suit Larry VI : Shape Up or Slip Out [Sierra On-Line, SCI 2.1 version, SVGA Windows]

Leisure Suit Larry VII : Love For Sail [Sierra On-Line/EA Games, SCI 2.1 SVGA Windows]

And soon.... Leisure Suit Larry VIII : Magna Cum Laude (Larry becomes a college professor.... woot) [Comming out on Xbox, PS2 and PC]

The fully clothed Hot Coffee is just a part of the code. There is also "Hotter Hot Coffee" that is accessible in both the PS2 version by way of codes and in the PC version by way of mods.

Source (http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=203149)

And, what entitles you, or any other person EXCEPT the game creator, from determining what is 'allowed' within game code?

Just because you 'don't like it'... that's not a good enough reason to say it shouldn't be allowed in... ESPECIALLY when that content is protected, such that it is NOT available WITHOUT modifying the purchased product.
Staring at the side of GTA: SA, I don't see any ESRB warning about actual sex in the game. If it is in the game, and it isn't warned, and the ESRB labels are put forth by rockstar to be everything objectionable that is in the game, then it is fraud.

Its like putting a bomb in a car and having the consumer go out and buy the detonators. The bomb shouldn't have been included by the manufacturer unless they wanted people to explode. Also, its kinda funny that a company named Rockstar gets into a sex scandal, just seems pretty appropriate.......
Hmmm, one 3/4 full fuel tank and a gas soaked towel, along with a lighter... Seems like a pretty fucking good recipe for a bomb to me.

You must be joking. Do you realize that Rockstar touted the fact that the game takes a minimum of 150 hours of play to complete? Thats at a minimum, it doesnt take into account all possible side quests and hidden areas, or the difficulty you may have getting past certain sections and having to do them over and over repeatedly until you get it right. Do you honestly believe any parent should be expected to do this?

Actually, by complete they probably mean get everything and complete every quest, however that assumes you do the quests in the least time possible with only travel distance between them, no exploring or anything else like that.

Staring at the side of GTA: SA, I don't see any ESRB warning about actual sex in the game. If it is in the game, and it isn't warned, and the ESRB labels are put forth by rockstar to be everything objectionable that is in the game, then it is fraud.

The code is not "in the game"; it's unlocked by a mod. (That is, it requires third party intervension to put the "sex" back into the game).

A "mod" is a third party program which either adds to the code; or uses un-used code snipets left in the existing code; to add features to game play; which are not available "out of the box" in normal course of play.

It's not "fraud" because Rockstar did not include sex in the game; as released.

Rockstar is not liable for getting a game, with no sexual content in it; rated as including sex; and they are not responsible for third-party mods (like Hot Coffee)...

People like you, should be licensed to use a computer...

This is one of the many reasons I'm not a Democrat.

Fuck off, Billary.

Couldn't Rockstar have left well enough alone and let us kill cops without the foul stench of sex?

What has this world come to when you can't shoot rocket launchers into crowds without having to see breasts?

The code is not "in the game"; it's unlocked by a mod. (That is, it requires third party intervension to put the "sex" back into the game).

A "mod" is a third party program which either adds to the code; or uses un-used code snipets left in the existing code; to add features to game play; which are not available "out of the box" in normal course of play.

It's not "fraud" because Rockstar did not include sex in the game; as released.

Rockstar is not liable for getting a game, with no sexual content in it; rated as including sex; and they are not responsible for third-party mods (like Hot Coffee)...

People like you, should be licensed to use a computer...
Sigh...some games are made to be modded. They are built to be modded, especially on the computer. Rockstar put it in there (which it has no reason to be) for the reason of allowing it to be unlocked. They knew that some crackerjack modder would find a way to change the variables to allow access to it. No other reason for it to be in there.

You must be joking. Do you realize that Rockstar touted the fact that the game takes a minimum of 150 hours of play to complete?
I think you're the one that's joking. Rockstar said 40-60 hours to complete. It's probably more like 30-50...as I beat the storyline in about 60 hours on the first try...

I think you're the one that's joking. Rockstar said 40-60 hours to complete. It's probably more like 30-50...as I beat the storyline in about 60 hours on the first try...
26!

The code is not "in the game"; it's unlocked by a mod. (That is, it requires third party intervension to put the "sex" back into the game).

A "mod" is a third party program which either adds to the code; or uses un-used code snipets left in the existing code; to add features to game play; which are not available "out of the box" in normal course of play.

It's not "fraud" because Rockstar did not include sex in the game; as released.

Rockstar is not liable for getting a game, with no sexual content in it; rated as including sex; and they are not responsible for third-party mods (like Hot Coffee)...

People like you, should be licensed to use a computer...
Actually...from what I understand...the code for the "Hot Coffee" ordeal is actually on the game disc...and regardless of whether or not it is actually "in the game," they are still supposed to show it to the ESRB so that the ESRB may appropriately rate the game based on the codes' actual contents.

26!
On the first play through?

I know people who went on to beat the storyline in as few as 18 hours...but on the first play through, when I was doing a lot of exploring and quite a bit of side missions, it took me 60 hours.

I felt it was significantly easier than the other games.

The fully clothed Hot Coffee is just a part of the code. There is also "Hotter Hot Coffee" that is accessible in both the PS2 version by way of codes and in the PC version by way of mods.

Source (http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=203149)

Er, have any of you people saying "the code isn't in the game" even read this? The code is in the game, Gamesharks / other cheat devices for the PS2 can't magically add tons of lines of code that isn't in the game to be able to create this.

Just for those who haven't seen what the fuss is about:

http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1913.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1914.png
http://files.gtanet.com/images/t_1915.png

Source Page: http://www.gtasanandreas.net/news/single.php?id=1469

Those clothes were photoshopped in. they dont have any clothes on in other sources ive seen it in. Really though who gives a (*@^....it isnt like these are hi rez models here..lol...

Er, have any of you people saying "the code isn't in the game" even read this? The code is in the game, Gamesharks / other cheat devices for the PS2 can't magically add tons of lines of code that isn't in the game to be able to create this.
This part of the game is NOT unlocked by a gameshark or anything else, a third party codew writer made a "patch," in this case aka a HACK, to allow you to access the content. That is against teh EULA and rockstar can;t be held accountable for what happens when people use third party programs. If there was anyway for this code to be legitimately acessed by like a ingame CODE, a easter egg code is not a third party hack, it would have been included in the ESRB rating of the game since it is accessible without messing with the code. THe hack is ONLY for the computer because that is the only place peopel can MODIFY the code for the game to make this accessible

Just remember kids.

Stealing cars does not give you aids.

Sex does.

Ihatevacations']This part of the game is NOT unlocked by a gameshark or anything else, a third party codew writer made a "patch," in this case aka a HACK, to allow you to access the content. That is against teh EULA and rockstar can;t be held accountable for what happens when people use third party programs. If there was anyway for this code to be legitimately acessed by like a ingame CODE, a easter egg code is not a third party hack, it would have been included in the ESRB rating of the game since it is accessible without messing with the code. THe hack is ONLY for the computer because that is the only place peopel can MODIFY the code for the game to make this accessible
We call them mods on planet earth.

Mods are made for every game. Rockstar made it far easier to allow a sex mod to be installed by adding the code for it into the game, able to be unlocked through a set of commands. Almost as if they wanted it to be unlocked (if they didn't want it to be unlocked, they wouldn't have put it in, obviously).

Staring at the side of GTA: SA, I don't see any ESRB warning about actual sex in the game. If it is in the game, and it isn't warned, and the ESRB labels are put forth by rockstar to be everything objectionable that is in the game, then it is fraud.

There is no actual sex in the game. You cannot purchase the product with sex 'in it'... you have to mix it up at home.

Your argument, I'm afraid, makes as much sense as saying "Ban the Bible, because, if you cut up the pages at home, and glue them back together in one particular order, it says "Jesus made love to children".

There is no actual sex in the game. You cannot purchase the product with sex 'in it'... you have to mix it up at home.

Your argument, I'm afraid, makes as much sense as saying "Ban the Bible, because, if you cut up the pages at home, and glue them back together in one particular order, it says "Jesus made love to children".
Except rockstar made it far easier to do so by having the code in there, something that would most likely be impossible at best (the coding to add sex to the game would have to be mindboggling from a modders point of view without the code already being in there) without it, to something that's easily doable and almost has the sanction of rockstar (why on earth would the code be in there if they didn't want some modder to make it known?)

Except rockstar made it far easier to do so by having the code in there,
and the Bible made it easier by having the words there.

Except rockstar made it far easier to do so by having the code in there, something that would most likely be impossible at best (the coding to add sex to the game would have to be mindboggling from a modders point of view without the code already being in there) without it, to something that's easily doable and almost has the sanction of rockstar (why on earth would the code be in there if they didn't want some modder to make it known?)

As my erstwhile colleague Nadkor pointed out, all the right words are in the Bible, too... they just aren't intended to be used for the function that you put them too when you 'modify' the product.

I take it you never looked for extra skins for Sims characters? Or played 'mod' versions of Quake, for example?

You seriously underestimate the ability (and determination) of some of the modding community.

Actually...from what I understand...the code for the "Hot Coffee" ordeal is actually on the game disc...and regardless of whether or not it is actually "in the game," they are still supposed to show it to the ESRB so that the ESRB may appropriately rate the game based on the codes' actual contents.

You've been informed wrong then.... ESRB is not, and never is supplied with "code" for the games. The game is provided, as is, to the ESRB; they then provide the game to three anonymous non-affiliate players; who use the game, and provide questionaire responses to the ESRB; who then use the responses to guage the rating.

Sigh...some games are made to be modded. They are built to be modded, especially on the computer. Rockstar put it in there (which it has no reason to be) for the reason of allowing it to be unlocked. They knew that some crackerjack modder would find a way to change the variables to allow access to it. No other reason for it to be in there.

Yes, it's a massive conspiracy.... Go put on your tin-foil hat....

It was snippet, abadoned in post-production.... Someone found a way to access the snippet... Big fucking deal.... The only "wrong" here, is the one commited by irresponsible parents; like yourself...

Yes, it's a massive conspiracy.... Go put on your tin-foil hat....

It was snippet, abadoned in post-production.... Someone found a way to access the snippet... Big fucking deal.... The only "wrong" here, is the one commited by irresponsible parents; like yourself...
If it was abandoned in post production, it would have been removed. In case you're wondering, people don't have an infinite amount of hard drive space to be taken up with unused code. It's bad to hog up people's hard drives.

I felt it was significantly easier than the other games.

Not if you use cheats! :D

If it was abandoned in post production, it would have been removed. In case you're wondering, people don't have an infinite amount of hard drive space to be taken up with unused code. It's bad to hog up people's hard drives.

LOL... Yeah, right... Actually, things abandoned in post-production, are hardly EVER removed. Simply because removal is far more intensive, than simply locking the code out of use.

It happens FREQUENTLY, not rarely.... You're merely ignorant of it.

LOL... Yeah, right... Actually, things abandoned in post-production, are hardly EVER removed. Simply because removal is far more intensive, than simply locking the code out of use.

It happens FREQUENTLY, not rarely.... You're merely ignorant of it.

Wait. So unusable code has been taking up space on my hard drive because the programmers are to lazy to remove it? Those jerks.

I have to wonder how many of you have actually used this mod.

I don't see many hands going up.

I've seen it in play (my boyfriend tried it out on his version of GTA, while I sat and watch - I'm such a good girlfriend :rolleyes: ). It's just fully clothed sex... well, to a small degree.

You see (for a small part of it), the woman's breasts. You, however, in order to get to this part of the mods, have to have a successful date with one of the four girls, and be invited in for coffee. This also requires some progress with her.

The other thing is, this mod can disrupt the saved files making them unplayable, so for that, some other players may not use it because the game requires long hours of dedicated play to make it through to the end.

I fail to see what's so bad about a USER made mod that exposes this code. There are other games that are more easily modded and the rating could get pushed up by such user mods.

The game developers probably don't make their code air tight because they acknowledge that hackers will go out and make mods for the game.

I have to wonder how many of you have actually used this mod.

I don't see many hands going up.

I've seen it in play (my boyfriend tried it out on his version of GTA, while I sat and watch - I'm such a good girlfriend :rolleyes: ). It's just fully clothed sex... well, to a small degree.

You see (for a small part of it), the woman's breasts. You, however, in order to get to this part of the mods, have to have a successful date with one of the four girls, and be invited in for coffee. This also requires some progress with her.

The other thing is, this mod can disrupt the saved files making them unplayable, so for that, some other players may not use it because the game requires long hours of dedicated play to make it through to the end.

I fail to see what's so bad about a USER made mod that exposes this code. There are other games that are more easily modded and the rating could get pushed up by such user mods.

The game developers probably don't make their code air tight because they acknowledge that hackers will go out and make mods for the game.
Nah, there are some versions of it (a bit more extensive) that cut right to the chase. The point is more that they have something that they know will be objectionable and will cause problems coded into the game.

Oh, and about code just being left in the game? I call bullshit, or else we'd see 'unlocking' patches all over the place opening up hidden content for my games. Imagine getting a new scenario in starcraft or even a few extra units.

If it was abandoned in post production, it would have been removed. In case you're wondering, people don't have an infinite amount of hard drive space to be taken up with unused code. It's bad to hog up people's hard drives.

Have you ever done any programming?

It is MUCH easier to provide a 'lock' for a segment of a program, than it is to hunt down and remove or alter EVERY call to that section of code.

You leave code in, because it is less likely to cause glitches, and because it is easier, than to try to surgically remove material.

Have you ever done any programming?

It is MUCH easier to provide a 'lock' for a segment of a program, than it is to hunt down and remove or alter EVERY call to that section of code.

You leave code in, because it is less likely to cause glitches, and because it is easier, than to try to surgically remove material.
But in a case such as this?

Do you honestly think that it would be easier to hope it would go away and risk this happening, with everything blowing up in their faces now, then to remove it?

Wait. So unusable code has been taking up space on my hard drive because the programmers are to lazy to remove it? Those jerks.

Yep.... Though, it's not "laziness".... Unless you would like significant price hikes in the game for them to spend the excess time "Removing" the offending code...

In all, it is very little code; a bulk of the space taken up by games such as GTA are in the texture maps, and rendering system..... Not the pertinent area of executables; where code snippets such as this would be...

But in a case such as this?

Do you honestly think that it would be easier to hope it would go away and risk this happening, with everything blowing up in their faces now, then to remove it?

It depends on how integral the code was... and it really is more common than you seem to be thinking...

The latest Starwars game has huge swathes of extra levels, etc encoded... that are totally unplayable at the moment. They created a whole load of extra material, and lacked the time and/or resources to integrate it, so they just 'locked it off'.

It's standard, in the game industry. Someone who creates a product that DOESN"T have material locked out, would be a rarity.

Perhaps it was before your time (I don't know how old you are), but the original Quake Demo could be modded to unlock the ENTIRE Quake game (at that stage of developement... pretty close to finished).

The Demo was created purely by locking off all the non-Demo code.

Yep.... Though, it's not "laziness".... Unless you would like significant price hikes in the game for them to spend the excess time "Removing" the offending code...

In all, it is very little code; a bulk of the space taken up by games such as GTA are in the texture maps, and rendering system..... Not the pertinent area of executables; where code snippets such as this would be...
I'd pay for it. I like my games polished, not rushed out pieces of crap. That's why I like rockstar. They consistantly put out a good product, which very few companies do (DICE (though they/ea really fucked up with the BF2 release state) is one of them, another is blizzard)

Again, let me stress, it doesn't make any sense. Modders have been around for quite a long time, and Rockstar knew that any such code that allowed sexual content to be accessed, at the very least, stood a damn good chance of being activated. They also, most likely, knew what would happen if someone unlocked it. Surely removing the code would be a bit cheaper then having to deal with all this (the ESRB is going to be pissed, and I wouldn't be suprised if some lawsuits didn't follow suit. Without merit, to be sure, but it still costs to defend yourself even from spurious lawsuits)

It depends on how integral the code was... and it really is more common than you seem to be thinking...

The latest Starwars game has huge swathes of extra levels, etc encoded... that are totally unplayable at the moment. They created a whole load of extra material, and lacked the time and/or resources to integrate it, so they just 'locked it off'.

It's standard, in the game industry. Someone who creates a product that DOESN"T have material locked out, would be a rarity.

Perhaps it was before your time (I don't know how old you are), but the original Quake Demo could be modded to unlock the ENTIRE Quake game (at that stage of developement... pretty close to finished).

The Demo was created purely by locking off all the non-Demo code.
If I recall, many share/crippleware games are the same way. That said, those seem to be the exception rather then the rule, specialized cases, crippled to allow easier distribution (rather then forcing two downloads, a person can just download the limited use demo, then if they like it pay for an unlocking cd key).

That said, think about the cost/benefit to removing it as to keeping it in. It is simply not worth the risk to leave it in.

Nah, there are some versions of it (a bit more extensive) that cut right to the chase. The point is more that they have something that they know will be objectionable and will cause problems coded into the game.

Oh, and about code just being left in the game? I call bullshit, or else we'd see 'unlocking' patches all over the place opening up hidden content for my games. Imagine getting a new scenario in starcraft or even a few extra units.

CSW, that happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME.... Hell, even in the old C&C:RA days, they had mods activating units that were locked out in post-production (and that was close to a decade ago)... There are COUNTLESS mods which UNLOCK hidden snippets left out of games; a pervue of the internet should tell you that... The fact that you don't know; just shows me you're a SNERT.

When things are removed from play, late in production; it's safer to LOCK the code, than to remove it, and create more potential bugs (anytime you remove large segments of code; you open yourself to massive potential problems)...

I call bullshit on a SNERT like yourself. Someone who appearantly hasn't been involved in the computer industry; possesses absolutely no knowledge or qualifications; yet somehow feels the need to speak from your ass on issues which you have demonstrated lacking any experience what-so-ever in, since the very inception of the gaming industry, for the last 2+ decades...

CSW, that happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME.... Hell, even in the old C&C:RA days, they had mods activating units that were locked out in post-production (and that was close to a decade ago)... There are COUNTLESS mods which UNLOCK hidden snippets left out of games; a pervue of the internet should tell you that... The fact that you don't know; just shows me you're a SNERT.

When things are removed from play, late in production; it's safer to LOCK the code, than to remove it, and create more potential bugs (anytime you remove large segments of code; you open yourself to massive potential problems)...

I call bullshit on a SNERT like yourself. Someone who appearantly hasn't been involved in the computer industry; possesses absolutely no knowledge or qualifications; yet somehow feels the need to speak from your ass on issues which you have demonstrated lacking any experience what-so-ever in, since the very inception of the gaming industry, for the last 2+ decades...
Does it?


Missed that completely. Oh well. I would be wrong then, wouldn't I.

I'd pay for it. I like my games polished, not rushed out pieces of crap. That's why I like rockstar. They consistantly put out a good product, which very few companies do (DICE (though they/ea really fucked up with the BF2 release state) is one of them, another is blizzard)

Again, let me stress, it doesn't make any sense. Modders have been around for quite a long time, and Rockstar knew that any such code that allowed sexual content to be accessed, at the very least, stood a damn good chance of being activated. They also, most likely, knew what would happen if someone unlocked it. Surely removing the code would be a bit cheaper then having to deal with all this (the ESRB is going to be pissed, and I wouldn't be suprised if some lawsuits didn't follow suit. Without merit, to be sure, but it still costs to defend yourself even from spurious lawsuits)

You're talking MASSIVE delays in marketing, MASSIVE delays in recoding, and MASSIVE delays in bug-fixes (that's right, BUGS.... reoving code, creates more bug potential in the code)...

It's simply EASIER to lock out the code; than to recode the entire game...

Lawsuits don't matter.... The EULA covers rockstars ass on this... (Mods, and changing the code of the executables (which is what both do); violates the EULA... If anything, anyone who uses the mod, looses all legal protection over use, for violating the EULA...

ESRB Guaged the game by its out-of-the-box, unmodified content.... What they were supposed to do...

The Game already has a M+ Rating (17+), including for "Strong Sexual Content"..

IMHO; the only ones at fault; are the people who allowed their kids to buy the game to begin with.... Since "sex with prostitutes" is so wrong, but mindless decapitations and violence is "ok".

CSW, you have not a single leg to stand on....

If I recall, many share/crippleware games are the same way. That said, those seem to be the exception rather then the rule, specialized cases, crippled to allow easier distribution (rather then forcing two downloads, a person can just download the limited use demo, then if they like it pay for an unlocking cd key).

That said, think about the cost/benefit to removing it as to keeping it in. It is simply not worth the risk to leave it in.

There is added cost to removing code, and there is added cost to keeping the code in and locking it off.

The cheaper, easier, and far more reliable, method... is to lock the code off.

Way that against the risks...

Well, the license agreement and warranty text, etc. usually EXPLICITLY disallow modification of the source code.

So - the risk is nil.

Step outside your box for a second, and aks yourself which you would honestly do:

a) Release the game in the cheaper, easier and more reliable way... with no risks UNLESS someone else invalidates THEIR half of the purchase contract, by modifying your product?

or

b) Release the game in the more expensive, harder, and far less reliable (and more 'glitchy') way... for the same basic 'no risk'?

Mommy, for my 12th birthday, can I buy a ho?

...The CRAP they imply kids are thinking...I swear.

Nice to see they thinking of taking up gardening....

There is added cost to removing code, and there is added cost to keeping the code in and locking it off.

The cheaper, easier, and far more reliable, method... is to lock the code off.

Way that against the risks...

Well, the license agreement and warranty text, etc. usually EXPLICITLY disallow modification of the source code.

So - the risk is nil.

Step outside your box for a second, and aks yourself which you would honestly do:

a) Release the game in the cheaper, easier and more reliable way... with no risks UNLESS someone else invalidates THEIR half of the purchase contract, by modifying your product?

or

b) Release the game in the more expensive, harder, and far less reliable (and more 'glitchy') way... for the same basic 'no risk'?

That's why I said the lawsuits would have no merit. They are covered by the EULA, but that won't stop people from bringing them, and it costs money to defend yourself from them, even if they have no merit (remember, lawyers fees are rarely ordered to be paid by the plaintiff unless another motion is filed), and more to the point, it brings horrid press. Step out of the informed gamer box and look at it from the viewpoint of a mother. Would you want your kids playing a game that easily can be modified to add sex to it (regardless of the fact that any game, including the sims, can and has, but that really isn't the point).

That's why I said the lawsuits would have no merit. They are covered by the EULA, but that won't stop people from bringing them, and it costs money to defend yourself from them, even if they have no merit (remember, lawyers fees are rarely ordered to be paid by the plaintiff unless another motion is filed), and more to the point, it brings horrid press. Step out of the informed gamer box and look at it from the viewpoint of a mother. Would you want your kids playing a game that easily can be modified to add sex to it (regardless of the fact that any game, including the sims, can and has, but that really isn't the point).

As you point out, ANY game can be modified.

I'm glad you mentioned the Sims... I mentioned it a few pages back, also. I used to play it, and went online to download extra skins for my characters... I found that there were thousands of other, non-sanctioned, mods - including nudity and adult-material mods.

Perhaps Rockstar should fight this - incurring the legal costs if they must, just to draw attention to the fact that parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to be the guardians of their children.... what they watch, what they play... even what they download.

Nice to see they thinking of taking up gardening....

Yay! Blackadder sig!

As you point out, ANY game can be modified.

I'm glad you mentioned the Sims... I mentioned it a few pages back, also. I used to play it, and went online to download extra skins for my characters... I found that there were thousands of other, non-sanctioned, mods - including nudity and adult-material mods.

Perhaps Rockstar should fight this - incurring the legal costs if they must, just to draw attention to the fact that parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to be the guardians of their children.... what they watch, what they play... even what they download.
Except Maxis didn't place nuke skins in the sims game as it was sold, which is a highly important distinction for family advocates. I agree with you, parents should watch their children, and should take responcibility, I just find it absurd that rockstar would take such a risk if they weren't winking at it on the side.

Except Maxis didn't place nuke skins in the sims game as it was sold, which is a highly important distinction for family advocates. I agree with you, parents should watch their children, and should take responcibility, I just find it absurd that rockstar would take such a risk if they weren't winking at it on the side.

Actually... although not detailed, Maxis DID include the unclothed skins for the models.

One of the more basic mods just removed the pixelation during bathing and toilet scenes, thus providing 'naked' Sims that WERE in the as-sold game... just 'hidden' behind a 'camera-effect'.

Actually... although not detailed, Maxis DID include the unclothed skins for the models.

One of the more basic mods just removed the pixelation during bathing and toilet scenes, thus providing 'naked' Sims that WERE in the as-sold game... just 'hidden' behind a 'camera-effect'.
Oh? I thought that it was a pixilated skin, and the mods replaced that with the nude skin. Learn something new...

Gee, why don't parents take some responsibility and stop younger children from playing it?

Over here, if you can afford the game ($90AUD- though I imagine the point holds true in the USA as well), you're probably by any definition old enough to see anything in it...so....IF YOU DO NOT LIKE YOUR CHILDREN PLAYING IT AND WITNESSING SUCH VIOLENCE/SEXUAL REFERENCES DO NOT BUY IT FOR THEM. SIMPLE SOLUTION.

Or are people stupid, and like to force their views upon others at the expense of their enjoyment? Yep, that's probably it.

Or are people stupid, and like to force their views upon others at the expense of their enjoyment? Yep, that's probably it.

That's exactly what it is. You should see the soccer moms and the bullshit they spread...

It was probably going to be in the game at first, but then they realised it would make their rating higher, so they deactivated it.
Clearing the code would have been more process and space efficient … a little more programmer time but a much better product

Actually... although not detailed, Maxis DID include the unclothed skins for the models.

One of the more basic mods just removed the pixelation during bathing and toilet scenes, thus providing 'naked' Sims that WERE in the as-sold game... just 'hidden' behind a 'camera-effect'.
Yeah they originally were going for a “positional blocking” effect (meaning the camera angles and or fixtures would hide the naked skins) but added the blur bar after the fact to make it seem more appropriate to parents

Again, let me stress, it doesn't make any sense. Modders have been around for quite a long time, and Rockstar knew that any such code that allowed sexual content to be accessed, at the very least, stood a damn good chance of being activated. They also, most likely, knew what would happen if someone unlocked it.
They probably didn't think someone would take the time to go through lines and lines of ML code with a decompiler and through the hard-drive files with an hex editor looking for unused subroutines and then trying to call them to see if they worked.

Of course, infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters... Not quite infinite, but a large number can also get the job done.

I don't think Rockstar are responsible for this one. The game is rated M, the code was hidden away from the casual user and people are free to decide whether to unlock it or not.

That's why I said the lawsuits would have no merit. They are covered by the EULA, but that won't stop people from bringing them, and it costs money to defend yourself from them, even if they have no merit (remember, lawyers fees are rarely ordered to be paid by the plaintiff unless another motion is filed), and more to the point, it brings horrid press. Step out of the informed gamer box and look at it from the viewpoint of a mother. Would you want your kids playing a game that easily can be modified to add sex to it (regardless of the fact that any game, including the sims, can and has, but that really isn't the point).

Lawyers fees aren't... But corps like Rockstar; have their own legal deparment; and lawyers on staff....

Court Fees are automatically assigned to the "loser" of the case.

Rockstar, in winning litigation; looses no money (they pay their staff lawyers; regardless).... Not any that they already pay, anyway.. (Who do you think drafts these EULAs? It'll be those same fellows defending RockStar in the courts)...

The burden is on the plaintiff's...... Not to mention all the damage ensued if Rockstar Countersuits over the EULA violation.

It's just as simple to lock the code...

Except Maxis didn't place nuke skins in the sims game as it was sold, which is a highly important distinction for family advocates. I agree with you, parents should watch their children, and should take responcibility, I just find it absurd that rockstar would take such a risk if they weren't winking at it on the side.
If it is not unlockable by games natural code, ie normal gameplay or a built in cheat code, it is not Rockstar's problem. If some one downloads and uses a third party hack to access soemthnig that is the exact technical equivalent of downloading nude skins for the Sims or turning off teh pixelation with a third party hack. Rockstar has no liability and the EULA will cover their asses. Besides, oh no pixelated nuidty on an M ranked game, that makes illegal in what 12 states because their age to look at that stuff is 21

Clearing the code would have been more process and space efficient … a little more programmer time but a much better product

Not generally true in late production: As it tends to cause more bugginess in the code. And a need to return the game back through testing stages (basically make their release ready product; an Alpha again)....

Not generally true in late production: As it tends to cause more bugginess in the code. And a need to return the game back through testing stages (basically make their release ready product; an Alpha again)....
If they have a completely segregated section of code though … its not really a dependency so removal if they properly organized things should be relatively painless

Not to mention that if it was an original part of the game from the looks of it that part was pulled out before they put anything like alpha release level work (namely things like the guy still wearing clothing and such)

If they have a completely segregated section of code though … its not really a dependency so removal if they properly organized things should be relatively painless

How often is code "completely segregated" though? Alot, generally, in smaller applications; but you get very dependency heavy in larger ones. There is also the issue that parts of the offending code could be used elsewhere; for other purposes.

then these groups should be going after ea and maxis as well for child porn,
as you can download a nude patch for the sims and sims 2

How often is code "completely segregated" though? Alot, generally, in smaller applications; but you get very dependency heavy in larger ones. There is also the issue that parts of the offending code could be used elsewhere; for other purposes.
Possibly … I have a feeling we would need to see the code to find out for sure … and some of the functions could be called else ware (I usually do only network programming so it is all about stripping things to their bare minimum … the rebuild time is absolutely worth the removal of extraneous code)

then these groups should be going after ea and maxis as well for child porn,
as you can download a nude patch for the sims and sims 2
Nah, trust me, I've seen the nude patch. It's pretty much the same as a naked Barbie doll.

And naked children that are not REAL children isn't illegal. Look at loli for instance...no wait, don't subject your eyes to that stuff. It's not right but it's not illegal.

Clearing the code would have been more process and space efficient … a little more programmer time but a much better product
Welcome to the 21st century, when cpu cycles, memory and hard disk storage are pretty much on par with dirt and programmers' time is worth gold.

If this was, say, 1985, then I would agree with you. As things are today cleaning out the code doesn't make the game any more efficient.

Except Maxis didn't place nuke skins in the sims game as it was sold, which is a highly important distinction for family advocates. I agree with you, parents should watch their children, and should take responcibility, I just find it absurd that rockstar would take such a risk if they weren't winking at it on the side.
Actually, there is a builtin Maxis cheat that lets you change the size of the censored gride when sims are naked. If you want it perpeutually, off, you can create a very simple file called userstartupcheats (or something similar) and voila - instant nudity. There are nue meshes and such.

If they had placed true censors in, you'd have required more than just a simple builtin cheat to undo that.

then these groups should be going after ea and maxis as well for child porn,
as you can download a nude patch for the sims and sims 2
You don't need to. There is a text cheat that you can put into a start up file that takes away from the censoring without using a third party mod. The cheat is a Maxis one, like motherlode, boolprops (which has many)...

And even without it, you have the sims looking like Barbie dolls - zero details in the genitilia and just the basic outline for breasts on the girls and the barest of six pack on a well-trained boy.

Children can't have relations.

without a third party hack, children can't die without drowning.

Teens can't have fun without a third party mod, just like the uni students (though they can have sfe sex, which is automatically "safe" - which makes no sense).

There are numerous mods to increase the ways to kill sims and mod their sex lives. But, these aren't like the nude censor grid which can be removed by making the number on the censorgrid 0.

Welcome to the 21st century, when cpu cycles, memory and hard disk storage are pretty much on par with dirt and programmers' time is worth gold.

If this was, say, 1985, then I would agree with you. As things are today cleaning out the code doesn't make the game any more efficient.
Well it does but usually not DETECTABLY different

You got to understand I come from a network programming background (what experience I do have in programming) every little bit you can save in the efficiency makes a word of difference when you are dealing in network traffic

Well it does but usually not DETECTABLY different

You got to understand I come from a network programming background (what experience I do have in programming) every little bit you can save in the efficiency makes a word of difference when you are dealing in network traffic
That's quite true, as each letter when translated into binary becomes its own bit, which may not seem like much, but when a whole bunch of these little bits are put together, you get a nibble, then a byte, then a kilobyte... so, while one may not make a difference, a larger number does when you're dealing with a network known to have a heavy traffic flow (such as Jolt for example).

Well it does but usually not DETECTABLY different
Agreed. And if people are not going to notice anyway, what's the point? The difference is that your costs are going to increase quite a bit just to reduce the installation time by half a second.

You got to understand I come from a network programming background (what experience I do have in programming) every little bit you can save in the efficiency makes a word of difference when you are dealing in network traffic
Sure, that's how it was in 1985. Every bite and every cycle counted and you spent days making your code as efficient as possible. Now you can get away with kludges and patches, and it won't make any difference. Unless, as you say, you're dealing with a networked environment since bandwidth is still relatively expensive and limited.

Agreed. And if people are not going to notice anyway, what's the point? The difference is that your costs are going to increase quite a bit just to reduce the installation time by half a second.


Sure, that's how it was in 1985. Every bite and every cycle counted and you spent days making your code as efficient as possible. Now you can get away with kludges and patches, and it won't make any difference. Unless, as you say, you're dealing with a networked environment since bandwidth is still relatively expensive and limited.
Not to mention the hardware you are working with … you are not always dealing with full fledged cpu’s (word auto corrected cpu's to cups lol though cups IS a printing service) … you are sometimes dealing with network card processing (to save buffer transfer) or low end routers with the rough processing power of a calculator in some …

Also tend to do network security stuff … another efficiency of cycles area so yeah

As they say hardware progress makes programmers lazy lol

Not to mention the hardware you are working with … you are not always dealing with full fledged cup’s … you are sometimes dealing with network card processing (to save buffer transfer) or low end routers with the rough processing power of a calculator in some …

Also tend to do network security stuff … another efficiency of cycles area so yeah

As they say hardware progress makes programmers lazy lol

Yep, far different idealogies when dealing with network, and web programming, vice machine programs.

Network, and Server-side programs, tend to want to be hyper-streamlined, to the max... Because they have so much limiting their capability. Also, server-side, tends to want to keep the code to the smallest ammount possible (as it boosts overall usage capability).

That just is not the case with games.... They tend to run from their media (as opposed to disks); so as long as they can maintain that 6+ GB space constraint onthe DVD's they distribute the stuff on; they could care less past that. The issue is on realism, and how much you can render onto your screen; pushing hardware requirements to the absolute max.

Let's face it; I can still turn a Pentium 3 500 into a web-server, as a reliable PHP host.... But I couldn't play GTA:SA on it....

Yep, far different idealogies when dealing with network, and web programming, vice machine programs.

Network, and Server-side programs, tend to want to be hyper-streamlined, to the max... Because they have so much limiting their capability. Also, server-side, tends to want to keep the code to the smallest ammount possible (as it boosts overall usage capability).

That just is not the case with games.... They tend to run from their media (as opposed to disks); so as long as they can maintain that 6+ GB space constraint onthe DVD's they distribute the stuff on; they could care less past that. The issue is on realism, and how much you can render onto your screen; pushing hardware requirements to the absolute max.

Let's face it; I can still turn a Pentium 3 500 into a web-server, as a reliable PHP host.... But I couldn't play GTA:SA on it....


Lol you looking at my server at home :) (running Apache2 with phpbb board .... along with samba server ftp server with it being the domain controller)

(btw it is a 450 mhz gateway running FreeBSD)

It's a stupid rule, but they broke it, and now they have to pay.

It's a shame, I'm a major GTA fan

Wait. So unusable code has been taking up space on my hard drive because the programmers are to lazy to remove it? Those jerks.

LOL

see: WINDOWS

;)

It's a stupid rule, but they broke it, and now they have to pay.

It's a shame, I'm a major GTA fan

Which rule did Rockstar North break, exactly?

Which rule did Rockstar North break, exactly?

HEY its nute :)

whats up man?

anyway, i still don't understand what the big deal is.

#1. its only 'available' on the PC version.

#2. you have to use a 'mod' outside of the game to use it. not something available unless you really go out of your way.

#3. lets look at this a different angle. Maybe Rockstar should countersue EVERY parent who tries to sue them for 'selling porn to kids'...the Rating was already M for mature 17+ ...hmmm think about it. Parents should be held just as liable as Rockstar for the contents on this game i think.

as many others have said, think about it: its ok for a tean playing the game to run down 'innocents' in the game, kill, steal and plunder, but not ok to 'make love' ????

and if you think about it, i'm sure if these 'kids' who have found a way to download this program really wanted to toss off, they can find plenty of free porn on the internett already, which is whole lot more interesting then looking at some pixels grinding each other


:)

peace,

Culebra.

Which rule did Rockstar North break, exactly?
Full disclosure rule that ESRB has. If they're going to rate your game (and you pretty much can't market your game without and ESRB rating), you have to agree to fully disclose all of the games' contents. And that's what the major fuss here is (or at least, should be) about, the fact that Rockstar North did not fully disclose all of the games contents to ESRB, which led ESRB to give a misleading rating, as the disputed contents would likely cause ESRB to label GTA:SA as "AO: Adult Only," which is just as hard to market as a game without an ESRB rating.

HEY its nute :)

whats up man?

anyway, i still don't understand what the big deal is.

#1. its only 'available' on the PC version.

#2. you have to use a 'mod' outside of the game to use it. not something available unless you really go out of your way.

#3. lets look at this a different angle. Maybe Rockstar should countersue EVERY parent who tries to sue them for 'selling porn to kids'...the Rating was already M for mature 17+ ...hmmm think about it. Parents should be held just as liable as Rockstar for the contents on this game i think.

as many others have said, think about it: its ok for a tean playing the game to run down 'innocents' in the game, kill, steal and plunder, but not ok to 'make love' ????

and if you think about it, i'm sure if these 'kids' who have found a way to download this program really wanted to toss off, they can find plenty of free porn on the internett already, which is whole lot more interesting then looking at some pixels grinding each other


:)

peace,

Culebra.

#1, from what I've heard, it's not available only on the PC version. The code is apparently in all 3 version of the game, it just requires a 3rd party program to unlock (Gameshark for PS2, etc).

#2, irregardless of having to use a 3rd party program, it is still part of the game's contents and Rockstar North failed to disclose that section of the code to the ESRB.

#3, Rockstar can't countersue parents. I'm looking at the ESRB rating on the game and the reasons given for the M rating are "Blood and Gore," "Intense Violence," "Strong Language," "Strong Sexual Content," and "Use of Drugs." If it is the nudity that the parent finds objectionable yet doesn't mind her child seeing all of the rest, then Rockstar has no grounds to sue the parents. Everything is clearly labeled except the "Nudity," which couldn't be labeled as ESRB was not shown that part of the code.

And again, even if all the other stuff (violence, etc) is just as bad (or worse) in your opinion as the sex, the fact remains that Rockstar North did not give ESRB full disclosure to all of the game's contents and the nudity that very much is in the game's code was not put on the warning label. That is what this fuss is about. Not about the ease for children to get the same content from somewhere else. It's the fact that the game was not appropriately rated.

Full disclosure rule that ESRB has. If they're going to rate your game (and you pretty much can't market your game without and ESRB rating), you have to agree to fully disclose all of the games' contents. And that's what the major fuss here is (or at least, should be) about, the fact that Rockstar North did not fully disclose all of the games contents to ESRB, which led ESRB to give a misleading rating, as the disputed contents would likely cause ESRB to label GTA:SA as "AO: Adult Only," which is just as hard to market as a game without an ESRB rating.

why would 'nudity' have given it an AO rating? games like "Playboy, Leisure Suie Larry, and guy game have full blown nudity AND sex in them(Guy game even has actual cut-scenes of REAL women, like OMG!!! ;) )...yet they were rated M also. And last time i checked 'strong sexual content' pretty much covers the whole nudity thing. most R rated films and even X rated ones dont even disclose the 'nudity' thing, its pretty much assumed with the whold Strong Sexual content disclamer....

eh, w/e. not a big deal to me. i already got the game and even if it was AO i would still get it. Rockstar has done made enough money during its release (almost a year now, when most sales are done anyway) to be just fine. i don't think BK is really on their future doorstep...

why would 'nudity' have given it an AO rating? games like "Playboy, Leisure Suie Larry, and guy game have full blown nudity AND sex in them(Guy game even has actual cut-scenes of REAL women, like OMG!!! ;) )...yet they were rated M also. And last time i checked 'strong sexual content' pretty much covers the whole nudity thing. most R rated films and even X rated ones dont even disclose the 'nudity' thing, its pretty much assumed with the whold Strong Sexual content disclamer....

eh, w/e. not a big deal to me. i already got the game and even if it was AO i would still get it. Rockstar has done made enough money during its release (almost a year now, when most sales are done anyway) to be just fine. i don't think BK is really on their future doorstep...
1. While the nudity and sex may not be as bad or worse than the games you reference, do those games have anything else to give it such the high-rating? The rating is based on the full game and there aren't set in stone rules (in most instances) about ratings.

2. R rated films' rating includes notes like "nude," "partial nudity," "brief nudity," et cetera.

3. While the PS2 version of the game came out 9-10 months ago, the XBox and PC version of the game have not been out for very long and are still selling fairly well, but you're right, most of the sales are pretty much done (especially for the PS2 version).

4. X rated movies and AO rated games aren't even required to have any sort of warnings beyond the rating...

5. R and X rated films are required to "disclose" everything. The creators of Team America had to trim a lot from their marionette sex scene in order to get the rating of the movie down to R...absolutely everything must be disclosed to these voluntary ratings systems, and that's so the rating systems can protect themselves and accurately rate the game/movie.

6. What's BK?

BK=Bankruptcy...shortened term used in finance/loans etc...

anyway, you obviously have more knowledge on the ratings system then me. but if a hidden program you have to use a 'code' or 'mod' to access some 3rd rate porn throws GTA:SA into the AO loop, then its more reason to laugh at the whole ratings system.

again, the game is intended for M, 17+ right??? by 17 most men and women are just one year away from being independent, able to join the USA military and able to vote. but not able to play a freaking video game??? im 34 and i find that funny.

maybe they should just change M to 18+...hell, not like it matters anyway, parents would still by it for thier kids anyway...

Full disclosure rule that ESRB has. If they're going to rate your game (and you pretty much can't market your game without and ESRB rating), you have to agree to fully disclose all of the games' contents. And that's what the major fuss here is (or at least, should be) about, the fact that Rockstar North did not fully disclose all of the games contents to ESRB, which led ESRB to give a misleading rating, as the disputed contents would likely cause ESRB to label GTA:SA as "AO: Adult Only," which is just as hard to market as a game without an ESRB rating.

Except this "Full-Disclosure Rule" doesn't exist. There is no rule which requires game makers to disclose the entire contents of their code. Only in-game material, videos and the like. Under the text of the rules; locked-out code; opened by modification of executable content; does not qualify...

What people want, is Rockstar to be found in violation of rules which do not exist; and create them and apply them ex-post-facto. Ex-post-facto is illegal.

#3, Rockstar can't countersue parents. I'm looking at the ESRB rating on the game and the reasons given for the M rating are "Blood and Gore," "Intense Violence," "Strong Language," "Strong Sexual Content," and "Use of Drugs." If it is the nudity that the parent finds objectionable yet doesn't mind her child seeing all of the rest, then Rockstar has no grounds to sue the parents. Everything is clearly labeled except the "Nudity," which couldn't be labeled as ESRB was not shown that part of the code.

EULA violation countersuit.

It was a contract violation to modify the code in the first place to gain access.

All versions require modification of executable code by third party applications; such modification violate the contract agreements all of them made at time of purchase.

If suit is brought; then the parents open themselves to counter-litigation by EULA stipulations. That is; they had to do something illegal, for them to make the suit in the first place.

Except this "Full-Disclosure Rule" doesn't exist. There is no rule which requires game makers to disclose the entire contents of their code. Only in-game material, videos and the like. Under the text of the rules; locked-out code; opened by modification of executable content; does not qualify...

What people want, is Rockstar to be found in violation of rules which do not exist; and create them and apply them ex-post-facto. Ex-post-facto is illegal.

Agreed.

Once again, as was mentioned earlier, to base the rating for a game on code that has been locked-out and requires hacking to access is the same as basing the rating for a movie on clips of film left on the cutting room floor.

Ultimately, what Rockstar North is marketing is properly rated at M and not AO because Rockstar North is marketing GTA: SA sans gratuitous sex scenes.

If anything, Rockstar North should be suing the hacker that unlocked the code for violation of the EULA (view Tek's last post) for hacking the game. Ever use a cheat code? You're in violation of the EULA for modifying the game - remember, codes are not intended for public use, they are intended for developmental testing of different aspects of gameplay.

Full disclosure rule that ESRB has. If they're going to rate your game (and you pretty much can't market your game without and ESRB rating), you have to agree to fully disclose all of the games' contents. And that's what the major fuss here is (or at least, should be) about, the fact that Rockstar North did not fully disclose all of the games contents to ESRB, which led ESRB to give a misleading rating, as the disputed contents would likely cause ESRB to label GTA:SA as "AO: Adult Only," which is just as hard to market as a game without an ESRB rating.

This just isn't true...

ESRB only needs to rate material that will be in the game... they don't need to rate code. And, without a deliberate external interference (mod), it IS just code.

Except this "Full-Disclosure Rule" doesn't exist. There is no rule which requires game makers to disclose the entire contents of their code. Only in-game material, videos and the like. Under the text of the rules; locked-out code; opened by modification of executable content; does not qualify...

What people want, is Rockstar to be found in violation of rules which do not exist; and create them and apply them ex-post-facto. Ex-post-facto is illegal.
Only in criminal cases.


:D


(Of course Rockstar is correct here, that's not the point, it's the matter of why on earth was it left in if it was going to cause such a firestorm, which it appears to be doing now)

Only in criminal cases.


:D


(Of course Rockstar is correct here, that's not the point, it's the matter of why on earth was it left in if it was going to cause such a firestorm, which it appears to be doing now)

It shouldn't have created ANY firestorm, at all.

It's an example of the nanny-culture, that people are trying to apportion blame based on an entirely potential risk, that only becomes an 'issue' if the agreed 'contract' is violated.

Actually, this game has been the center of attention of politicians since it came out on the PS2.

"This game is implying that it is okay to kill LAPD officers!"
"This game is enforcing a negative Africa-American stereotype!"
"This game supports gangs and drug use and murder!"
"This game supports mindless sex with it's (UHOH!) prostitutes"

They just found the big red button in the last couple of weeks with the mod.

There is nothing in the game that names any real law enforcement agency or dept. And if you can take a possible implication from a game and convert it to real life, then you had problems before you bought the game.

The game portrays a very realistic view of life in southern Cali during the early 90's. It may not be positive, but it's realistic.

The main character of the game is actually hell bent on stopping all of the crack dealers in his city. It's a major portion of the plot. And again, it doesn't "support" gangs and drugs. It portrays the environment in a very accurate way. Why do people want to wear blinders when looking at the world?

Supports mindless sex? ??? We'd need to recognize what is "mindless" to go any further.

This game supports blah blah blah yada yada yada..........

The game supports the developers financially, and that's about it. There is a 17+ rating on the game, and if it gets into a 10 year old's hands, it's the fault of the store of purchase, and then to their parent's for not paying attention.

Again, if you're 17+ and are being swayed to act out what you see in the game, you were warped before you bought it.

It shouldn't have created ANY firestorm, at all.

It's an example of the nanny-culture, that people are trying to apportion blame based on an entirely potential risk, that only becomes an 'issue' if the agreed 'contract' is violated.
The "potential" risk stems form little Billy using the coffee mod - that's if he can find it, download it, install it and run his game without corrupting the files. Of course that risk is little Billy losing his saved files... :D

The "potential" risk stems form little Billy using the coffee mod - that's if he can find it, download it, install it and run his game without corrupting the files. Of course that risk is little Billy losing his saved files... :D

That's the problem, though.

The game license agreements and warantees, etc.. forbid the modifications that are needed to get in the situation in the first place.

So - if little Billy gets the mod, his parents should have kept a better eye on what he was doing... and if he modifies a product licensed SPECIFICALLY with a no-mod clause... well, again, it SHOULD be the kid and his parents who are scrutinised... not the code-pushers.