-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rockstar under investigation by ESRB for GTA:SA sex minigames scandal
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
teruterubozu
Member
Mashing said:
Sure - but what about DOA "naked hacking"?
Or
Many games also have a huge list of cuss words that a user can't use as a profile name - but the cuss words are in the code.
where's the line going to be drawn?
But code is proprietary and copyrighted AFAIK. If the sequence isn't accessible in the game AS BOUGHT OFF THE SHELF, then the rest of the code shouldn't matter. AFAIK, R* can put a full-length porno on each disc, so long as it's not accessible without a 3rd party hack, it should be fine. They should be allowed to keep certain parts of their code a secret for competitive purposes, no? I mean, revealing things that aren't available in the playable form of the game is like just handing over all the code to the ESRB.
At IBM, we had these chip inspection tools that had a bios written by a 3rd party. We could access every other piece of code relating to the instrument, but as soon as something went wonky in the bios, we had to bring in the vendor, and their guy worked on it privately, away from prying eyes. This should be the same for R*. This scene isn't accessible by any normal means. You have to dload a hack (not made or endorsed by R*) in order to access this bit of code. If a programmer used a ton of swear words in his programming comments, and someone wrote a program that unlocked these comments and put them to screen, could the ESRB take action just b/c the language was in the code? I find that very hard to believe. This is grey area central, and IMO, the ESRB doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are trying to keep themselves relevant, b/c no one gives a shit about game violence anymore. PEACE.
At IBM, we had these chip inspection tools that had a bios written by a 3rd party. We could access every other piece of code relating to the instrument, but as soon as something went wonky in the bios, we had to bring in the vendor, and their guy worked on it privately, away from prying eyes. This should be the same for R*. This scene isn't accessible by any normal means. You have to dload a hack (not made or endorsed by R*) in order to access this bit of code. If a programmer used a ton of swear words in his programming comments, and someone wrote a program that unlocked these comments and put them to screen, could the ESRB take action just b/c the language was in the code? I find that very hard to believe. This is grey area central, and IMO, the ESRB doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are trying to keep themselves relevant, b/c no one gives a shit about game violence anymore. PEACE.
teruterubozu
Member
Pimpwerx said:
EXACTLY my point.
Wafflecopter
Banned
WHy would you want them to get in trouble? Idiot.Himuro said:
teruterubozu
Member
Wyzdom said:
If the game recognizes "fuck you" and prevents you from using that as a profile name, then, douche bag, it's in the code.
Rockstar should have disclosed content. But the content is easily permissable under an M rating the game equivalent of "R". So who gives a fuck. FYI I don't really care too much for Rockstar or GTA, but this stuff is hardly adults only fodder, but the lack of a disclosure is the problem.
Despite everything that has been said here discussed here, R* knew the sex minigame (and if they weren't they're still reponsibile, ignorance is no excuse) and they knew that it would probably bump the rating up to AO so they choose to hide it from the ESRB. That's what I have a problem with, just imagine how some parents would feel if they bought their kids an M rated game that has AO content in it? Do you think they are going to care if it's only accessible via a hack? Absolutely not. I also must say how I feel the ESRB currently does not have any real authority, if they need to go after R* vigriously so they can ultimately get more authority when it comes to game ratings and it's enforcement, then I'm all for it. I really feel M rated games (or any rating for that matter) should only be sold only to the people of the required age. As it stands retail outlets and whatnot don't give two shits because there is no enforncement of such ratings.
U.2.K. Tha Greate$t
Banned
I guess ESRB didnt play Grand Theft Auto Vice City right?
teruterubozu
Member
Wyzdom said:
Relax - I saw you use "douche-bag" earlier so I'm just throwing it in there. :lol
scarybore
Member
Wyzdom said:
Two wrongs make a right?
Either way, providing there is no other way to gain access to this apart from modding the game itself (no sequence of events need to be done, button press cheats, etc.) and Rockstar ain't helping people in some way to let access this then I cant see the problem.
Mashing said:
Let's say we want to make a future Eyetoy game. Now, this Eyetoy game would take your picture and map it to the face of a character online and blah blah blah. Now the coders know some gamers will take pics of their cock and put it on a face, and thus make the game unplayable/banned to kids. Well, to circumvent this, let's say the devs have implemented a picture filter that filters out all sexual imagery. In order to do so, they have implemented pics of sexual imagery in their code that is NEVER meant to be seen by the end-user. It's not accessible with any code or whatever, it's just there as a means to help filter out potential perverts. So the final game gets an E rating, b/c there's no way anyone can post pics of their privates on there.
NOW, let's say Hacker X comes along and writes a program that unlocks these sexual images that were originally meant to be used to prevent such imagery from ever being shown. What do you do then? The images are in the code, but they were never meant to be playable, and were pretty much hidden away. Does the dev need to reveal this info? I don't see why. If it's a proprietary function they wrote, they'd want to make sure none of their competitors could copy it, and the ESRB is not exactly Fort Knox. There's no telling who at the ESRB would sell their secrets to the highest bidder, right? So the company has a legit reason to want to protect that info. But once the program is dloaded from Hacker X's site, now there's a way to view all this sexual imagery in an E-rated game.
The problem is not the dev IMO, it's Hacker X. He's the one who created SEPERATE PIECE OF SOFTWARE (that's the key) to unlock this content. Hacker X should get an ESRB rating for his software, not the dev. I think this is a strawman here. They're trying to make a big deal out of something that is only accessible through the use of a secondary piece of software. The primary software (GTA:SA) is not at fault, eventhough it contained the offensive material. As long as the primary software contains no way of unlocking the offensive material by itself, then R* should be in the clear IMO.
This is my common sense argument, though, and has no root in the legal system. I just hope the ESRB can't hold R* accountable, b/c I think it's a slippery slope. Devs should have a right to protect their intellectual properties, especially from a worthless advisory board like the ESRB. I'd have to see the exact wording of the ESRB contract to know if they are right or wrong though. And since that's unknown, we'll just have to wait for this whole thing to play out. But if I didn't say it already, fuck the ESRB. PEACE.
Gek54 said:
...Yes it is, or are you going to sit there and tell me that, say, every locked car in Ridge Racer PSP isn't "part of the game's content" because it's locked.
*How* you unlock the content is irrelevant, it's still there waiting to be unlocked. This isn't a hack (apparently.)
Pimpwerx, obviously I made a mistake by saying "if it's in the code, they are accountable". What I mean is that if explicit content is the game knowingly or unwittingly and doesn't serve as a preventive measure against further explicit content, then they should be held accountable. Your example is an indication that the developer did what they could to prevent explicit content and therefore can't be held accountable for the end users actions. However, in the case of the sex minigame in GTA:SA this is surely not the case. If you're arguement is that developers shouldn't be held accountable on all cases you are correct, but in this case R* is clearly at fault. Why would R* leave the sex minigame in the code? Why wasn't it taken out? Why didn't they mention to ESRB that graphic sex content could be unlocked by the knowledgeable user?
Edit: You say the ESRB is worthless, in it's current form I would agree (read my above post on that matter). But surely you agree that game ratings are need and should be enforced do you not?
Edit: You say the ESRB is worthless, in it's current form I would agree (read my above post on that matter). But surely you agree that game ratings are need and should be enforced do you not?
teruterubozu
Member
R* should do what Tecmo did with the DOA hackers - sue them.
anotheriori
Member
R* probably created these minigames seeing how far they could push the M rating but realizing it would get them an AO rating they probably disabled it and shipped it as is.. This portion was disabled and not removed maybe cause technical issues, but if you hacked your way to unlock it I don't think R* should be held accountable. The actual endproduct which is what the ESRB rates is what they did rate, this hack is alot like the DOAX hacks.
Gek54 said:
If it's pre-existing code, then someone, or some people, intended it to be unlocked. Otherwise it would have been excised prior to release. If it turns out that the mini-games are hard-coded into the game, it won't matter if it's impossible to unlock within the game itself, at least as far as the ESRB is concerned.
teruterubozu
Member
anotheriori said:
Exactly, that's why R* should just sue the hackers and be done with it, just like Tecmo did.
If the ESRB slams this game over disabled content, then what happens? Is DOAX in violation as well? Do they go back to every game ever made and hack them all to see if they missed anything? This is sooooo crazy.
-------
removing code late in the game can seriosuly fuck things up
-------
Yup. Can't make the assumption that it would just have been an easy thing just to remove a bunch of code. You don't know how late in the project R* decided to disable the minigame, or the circumstances around it. Since there is no in-game code or password to unlock it, so I seriously don't see how they can be made accountable. If DoA can be hacked to remove the clothing of all the chicks....should Tecmo be held accountable for this?
R* submitted all the content that the player was meant to unlock. Anything else was not intended to be seen. And just like how people hack PSPs and dvds, their shit was hacked. If anything, they could recall outstanding inventory and release it again with a patch that helps circumvent hackers to appease the ESRB (and get more publicity so that the remaining 2 people in the world can go buy it and kill some cops) just as Disney recalled a couple of movies where porn was somehow snuck into the final copy. But I don't see how they could be heavilly penalized.
removing code late in the game can seriosuly fuck things up
-------
Yup. Can't make the assumption that it would just have been an easy thing just to remove a bunch of code. You don't know how late in the project R* decided to disable the minigame, or the circumstances around it. Since there is no in-game code or password to unlock it, so I seriously don't see how they can be made accountable. If DoA can be hacked to remove the clothing of all the chicks....should Tecmo be held accountable for this?
R* submitted all the content that the player was meant to unlock. Anything else was not intended to be seen. And just like how people hack PSPs and dvds, their shit was hacked. If anything, they could recall outstanding inventory and release it again with a patch that helps circumvent hackers to appease the ESRB (and get more publicity so that the remaining 2 people in the world can go buy it and kill some cops) just as Disney recalled a couple of movies where porn was somehow snuck into the final copy. But I don't see how they could be heavilly penalized.
U.2.K. Tha Greate$t
Banned
How about this, about 90% of all games are violent or has some type of wrong doing in it, deal with it, or dont play it. Damn, there you go.
I understand maybe if rockstar woud of been honest, i guess things wouldnt be this way, but no need to get all crazy over it. This is not really a big deal, you trying to tell me the same people who invented the ESRB rating system, dont watch porn or do something wrong?
Google is our friend yall. :lol
I understand maybe if rockstar woud of been honest, i guess things wouldnt be this way, but no need to get all crazy over it. This is not really a big deal, you trying to tell me the same people who invented the ESRB rating system, dont watch porn or do something wrong?
Google is our friend yall. :lol
Speaking as a dev, it's not always that easy. Numerous times bits and pieces have been left in games that I've worked on, simply because it would have been too much trouble (especially late in the cycle) to remove the offending code and then test to ensure it didn't affect anything else. Lock it off and if anyone hacks it out - well, it wasn't meant for exposure in the final version anyways so here's to ya. That's why I can't get too worked up about this Rockstar porno hack - it wasn't meant for final approval, we don't know what it would have affected if they'd yanked it, and you need a PC hack in order to view the material. The DOA nude hack is a fair analogy, IMO. Remember, when GTA 3 was originally due for release and then 9/11 occurred, the ability to fly planes into buildings was yanked last minute (so I've been told) and as a result pushed back the release date.xsarien said:
Still, as Rockstar's #1 apologist on this board, you can take anything I say with a grain of salt.
While I agree that R* should've disclosed it, I mean they had voice acting and all, so obviously it was planned and not the work of some lone guy. However my point with the whole "HOW DARE YOU!!!" post is that a lot of the stuff that you do in the game, to me, should be AO rated already. To say that hey cop killing, prostitution rings, wanton violence is M but you show digital nudity, well that should be AO! And parents should be mad. Makes no sense to me. I would totally disagree with you. That's like taking your kids to see "Faces of Death XXIV" and yelling at the manager because a shirt fell off a corpse and you didn't want your kids to see that.
I'd be mad if my kids were playing GTA: SA at all, but if I let them have it and suddenly there was nudity, I wouldn't be silly enough to get mad about it, or even surprised by it, I mean what is one to expect from such a game?
Should they have disclosed it? Sure. But I just find the whole thing a little ill placed.
I'd be mad if my kids were playing GTA: SA at all, but if I let them have it and suddenly there was nudity, I wouldn't be silly enough to get mad about it, or even surprised by it, I mean what is one to expect from such a game?
Should they have disclosed it? Sure. But I just find the whole thing a little ill placed.
teruterubozu
Member
ronito said:
Well, isn't that just the general hypocrisy of American culture?
Janet Jackson could tell you that...
Also as someone mentioned earlier - M is 17+ while AO is 18+ - is one year such a difference in maturity?
Chittagong
Gold Member
Uhh.... this reminds me of last year, when I had submitted the ESRB doc for a critically acclaimed game, and then the lead designer came to remember that - "oh, actually we had some animals as easter eggs that you could kill. They're pretty hard to find, so I guess we didn't need to state them in the .doc we filled out, right?"
WRONG!!!!! And fuck, what a mess that was to clear out. "Yes, we had an animal there. Yes, you could harm it. Not torture. But kill anyway. Probably wouldn't suffer much, no. Yes, I'm very sorry." I decided at that instant that it was the god damn last game I'd ever manage.
WRONG!!!!! And fuck, what a mess that was to clear out. "Yes, we had an animal there. Yes, you could harm it. Not torture. But kill anyway. Probably wouldn't suffer much, no. Yes, I'm very sorry." I decided at that instant that it was the god damn last game I'd ever manage.
The Faceless Master
Member
for all the people pointing out the doa nude hacks...
under the clothes, in doa3/u, the models are just plain textured like the rest of their skin...
and in doax, they actually have stars and hearts over the sensitive areas...
it was people actually made their own textures with nipples and vaginas and hair...
you cxould do it for any game that had areas available for retexturing...
Soul Calibur II for example...
under the clothes, in doa3/u, the models are just plain textured like the rest of their skin...
and in doax, they actually have stars and hearts over the sensitive areas...
it was people actually made their own textures with nipples and vaginas and hair...
you cxould do it for any game that had areas available for retexturing...
Soul Calibur II for example...
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
teruterubozu said:
i believe the nudity is from a separate mod. but i may be wrong.
Mashing said:
Not really. I hate the ESRB. I hated Sen. Lieberman and his douchebag crusade against video games that started over a decade ago. I remember bitching to no end when they proposed the ESRB. Gamers can self-regulate. Besides, the ratings mean nothing. The percentage of kids who are actually unable to buy one of these games is small. Like I said, most store clerks don't give a shit. And in the worst case scenario, a kid can have an older friend or parent buy the game. I think the rating board is a means to appease Congress, nothing more, which is why the ratings aren't even binding. I think it's up to store policy to dictate whether or not they sell a game to a "minor". What a fucking joke anyway when you get the same content on tv.
IMO, censorship is stupid, and you don't need a ratings board to tell you what kind of content a game has. If the ESRB ever grew claws, devs could just forego getting their games approved by them. They're fairly harmless, but what it stands for goes against my views of the gaming industry. For someone raised on a steady diet of teen slasher flicks, I see no problem with the content in games. PEACE.
echoshifting
Banned
If it's not okay to post this, I apologize and feel free to delete this, but I noticed that I-Film has a link up now and I thought I'd go ahead and put it up for anybody who hasn't managed to track down the movie yet.
As others have mentioned, this isn't some incomplete chunks of code that have been sewn together by some hacker. It's a complete mini-game, with finished animations and voice acting.
Posting the link might be a bit redundant at this point in the conversation, but for those who sought out the screens and stopped there...take a look.
NSFW, mature content, bla bla bla...
http://www.ifilm.com/redirect/confirm_mature.jsp?redir=/ifilmdetail/2673401
edit: I should note I haven't really spent a lot of time with GTA: SA, so for all I know the voice acting in the mod might have been clipped in from other areas of the game. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is the case?
If it is, I have to wonder about some of the other features of the mod. A nude skin wouldn't exactly be difficult to make.
As others have mentioned, this isn't some incomplete chunks of code that have been sewn together by some hacker. It's a complete mini-game, with finished animations and voice acting.
Posting the link might be a bit redundant at this point in the conversation, but for those who sought out the screens and stopped there...take a look.
NSFW, mature content, bla bla bla...
http://www.ifilm.com/redirect/confirm_mature.jsp?redir=/ifilmdetail/2673401
edit: I should note I haven't really spent a lot of time with GTA: SA, so for all I know the voice acting in the mod might have been clipped in from other areas of the game. Can anyone confirm/deny if this is the case?
If it is, I have to wonder about some of the other features of the mod. A nude skin wouldn't exactly be difficult to make.
Amused_To_Death
Member
Honestly, who gives a fuck about this? Anyone can download tons of porn off the internet much easier than it would take them to unlock the GTA sex scenes. Will this idiotic assemblyman try to shut down the internet?
ESRB is helpless and is trying too deflect some attention away from their total incompetence and irrelevance. If Rockstar wants to, they can publish the game without an ESRB label and still sell tens of millions. Rockstar must be loving that kind of free PR - like they need any more money to line up their already fat wallets...
ESRB is helpless and is trying too deflect some attention away from their total incompetence and irrelevance. If Rockstar wants to, they can publish the game without an ESRB label and still sell tens of millions. Rockstar must be loving that kind of free PR - like they need any more money to line up their already fat wallets...
Mr_Furious
Member
ESRB should just use the the same ratings system and requirements as the MPAA.
Boy, some folks here are clueless.
The ESRB isn't some "evil government agency" -- it's a group set up by the gaming companies. It exists to ensure that the government doesn't censor games. The ESRB and the game companies work together to disclose the content of their games so no one can complain about something being inappropriate for children, thus bringing the government into the equation.
If companies try to skirt around the ESRB, then the ESRB becomes useless and the government will step in. Rockstar is supposed to ensure that all questionable content in their game is fully disclosed so that it can be appropriately labeled. Any attempt by them to undermine the ESRB hurts the entire game industry as a whole. If Rockstar knew this minigame existed, and if they failed to take the necessary precautions to remove/disable it, then they are responsible for it being there. Was it intentionally left available? Probably not -- but that doesn't excuse them from its presence.
Can the ESRB really "do" anything to Rockstar? Probably not, as participation in the ESRB is voluntary (as far as I know), but they will hurt the game industry as a whole if they don't cooperate.
The ESRB isn't some "evil government agency" -- it's a group set up by the gaming companies. It exists to ensure that the government doesn't censor games. The ESRB and the game companies work together to disclose the content of their games so no one can complain about something being inappropriate for children, thus bringing the government into the equation.
If companies try to skirt around the ESRB, then the ESRB becomes useless and the government will step in. Rockstar is supposed to ensure that all questionable content in their game is fully disclosed so that it can be appropriately labeled. Any attempt by them to undermine the ESRB hurts the entire game industry as a whole. If Rockstar knew this minigame existed, and if they failed to take the necessary precautions to remove/disable it, then they are responsible for it being there. Was it intentionally left available? Probably not -- but that doesn't excuse them from its presence.
Can the ESRB really "do" anything to Rockstar? Probably not, as participation in the ESRB is voluntary (as far as I know), but they will hurt the game industry as a whole if they don't cooperate.
typhonsentra
Banned
The reason M is 17+ is because it's the equivalent of an R movie rating. An AO would be the same as an NC-17, which are exceptionally rare and I can't think of any game which would deserve such a rating when compared to what a movie has to do to get such a rating.
Even though I don't agree with this investigation, it was completely moronic for R* to leave it in. They should've known that someone was going to blow this shit up. Maybe that's what they wanted? Maybe R* will go back to making quality games after this. GTA:SA=the worst GTA game IMO
Edit: It's the worst because it's story is lame and trash. The gameplay is greatly improved, and for that I thank them. But god, someone come out with a mod to fix the cheesy ass story.
GTA:SA=the worst GTA game IMOEdit: It's the worst because it's story is lame and trash. The gameplay is greatly improved, and for that I thank them. But god, someone come out with a mod to fix the cheesy ass story.
ManaByte
Member
bishoptl said:Speaking as a dev, it's not always that easy. Numerous times bits and pieces have been left in games that I've worked on, simply because it would have been too much trouble (especially late in the cycle) to remove the offending code and then test to ensure it didn't affect anything else. Lock it off and if anyone hacks it out - well, it wasn't meant for exposure in the final version anyways so here's to ya. That's why I can't get too worked up about this Rockstar porno hack - it wasn't meant for final approval, we don't know what it would have affected if they'd yanked it, and you need a PC hack in order to view the material. The DOA nude hack is a fair analogy, IMO. Remember, when GTA 3 was originally due for release and then 9/11 occurred, the ability to fly planes into buildings was yanked last minute (so I've been told) and as a result pushed back the release date.
Still, as Rockstar's #1 apologist on this board, you can take anything I say with a grain of salt.
The DOA nude hack isn't a fair analogy. The DOA nude hack is kids making nude texture packs with a modded Xbox and applying their custom textures to the game. The GTA:SA thing was something put in there by the devs but locked away. Team Ninja didn't make the nude textures in the game, the users did.
teruterubozu said:
That can vary from person to person, as a lot of things can affect maturity along with simple age.
Anyway, I will except that simply pulling the code out might not be as simple as a "select/delete" with the keyboard. I guess it would depend entirely on how the code is laid out. This doesn't remove R*'s responsibility to the ESRB to at least make the content known with a footnote, emphasizing the fact that it can't possibly be accessed in a stock copy of the game.
The ESRB only works as well as the industry lets it. If content is actively hidden from them to avoid certain ratings, well, that's not good for anyone.