Topic: City of LA sues over GTA:SA

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus


Once a game is hacked its your own responsibility. Rockstar decided early on not to include that as part of the game, and what was left over was very basic and very unfinished. It was a mistake, but in no way, shape or form a crime. Is that in video game law that anything on the disc that is unlocked is the consumers resposibility?  It would be one thing if the hot coffee mod was some plug in that warped GTASA's engine, but all the ground work was done by Rockstar.  I don't know how well you actually researched this, but if what you say is true and early on Rockstar decided to take this minigame out, why keep it?  If this is the precedent that this case sets, that a game company is responsible for all the content on the disc their customer buys that is not a bad precedent.  In fact since it is part of the product you purchased, it even makes common sense.  And who said it was a crime?  Being sued doesn't mean what you have done is criminal

And stop saying 'selling porn to minors' as if it's true, because it isn't. Where did I repeat myself for you to use the word 'stop'. I don't think I said it more than once and that was in reference to Ian implying that there was no legal distinction between a 17 and an 18 year old.All sex isn't porn, plain and simple. The hot coffee elements are the equivalent of a nude scene. Not even that. A nude scene might take five minutes of a two hour movie, and hot coffee is less than 1% of San Andreas. A game in which you have the freedom to spend as much time as you want where you want...  Stop trying to equate the movie industry with the video game industry, they aren't the same as much as you want them to be.  Get over it!

Quote
ESRB is responsible for doing something because it is their job to know so that they can rate content.  For them to defend Rockstar when Rockstar didn't tell them about it, would not only be detrimental for their reputation outside of game developers but also would be stupid because Rockstar created this negative publicity and dragged ESRB into it.

The ESRB is a guide for parents, not a law. The ESRB ratings have no legal status. They're a service, not a police force. Rockstar didn't feel something that wasn't part of the game should be rated, and that's fair. Being sued doesn't mean what you have done is criminal.  Like people get sued for false advertising in America.  Think of this case as an extension of that.

Quote
As I said before, I agree people have been gunning for GTA for ages and this was the excuse they needed, but that doesn't make Rockstar right for including the content.

Yawn. They didn't commit some henous crime. Yawn, you don't have to commit a crime to be sued... They simply made a mistake and handled it badly. People are sued all the time for mistakes.  The fact that God's warriors descended upon them doesn't actually make what they did as bad as Jack Thompson claims.

Quote
KDR, exactly.  Of course they wouldn't willingly delay the game because it would mean they'd lose money.  That was the decision they made as a company.  What you call 'minor' though is turning pretty major.

To delete the hot coffee files would've taken all of ten minutes If so, sucks that they kept them in there- they've probably lost millions already because of laziness and lack of foresight., and no delay would've been needed. There was no money making scam, no deception. Just a common practice that ended in a scandal blown out of proportion by video game attackers. KDR, who actually programs (right?) earlier said it might have been kept in because they'd have to further debug the game.  If it would have taken 10 minutes, all the more reason to cover their ass.

Quote
Personally I think the only thing that didn't merit the first 2 GTA3s an AO merit is because the rating had never been given to a game that didn't contain nudity.

There's nothing in the games that isn't in an R rated movie. Interactivity is in the games.  Though I wouldn't blow it out of proportion like Jack Thompson does, it is different to actively cause something versus passively watch it.

Quote
I'm not saying that it is right, but many parents have much less of a problem with violence and language than they do for sex.

It'd be one thing if this was a full-on sex FMV in something like Half-Life 2 or Perfect Dark, but it isn't. It's almost no nudity and rough 3D models humping in a game where you are a criminal, have to hit on girls, kill prostitutes and police, execute drug deals, use curse words every five seconds, etc. The sex is not anything serious in a game where the violence and language is very serious. And once again, a 17 year old can see movies with worse. Read what I said about many mature classifiers meriting this an AO rating.  Geist for example doesn't scream out Mature to me, but enough little teen things added up to earn it an M rating.

Quote
Kids do sneak into R rated movies and I guess they pirate them too (both illegal actions) but it is not as common as underage kids have violent video games and like I said before it is harder/impossible to be 'legally' big brothered in a theatre versus a video game. I'm 19 and my youngest sibling is 12. He has been exposed to M rated games for a while not because he tricked my mother into buying them for him, but because I play them.

Please explain to me how this has anything to do with Rockstar. Many parents let their kids watch R rated movies. Many big siblings let their little siblings watch bad movies. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. There is no way to stop kids from playing adult games or watching adult movies. The fact that kids are more likely to play adult games at home than see an R rated movie in theatres shows parents aren't as strict as the MPAA, that's all. It has nothing to do with selling or making video games. Sure there is a way to stop it.  An AO rating is practically an injunction.  How many more copies GTASA have been sold since the new rating?  If you want a nonsmart ass answer, try reading your own previous post - my response followed pretty logically.  My story was in answer to some of your rhetorical questions and one sided views about how parents can control and are the final authority on what their children play or are exposed to.

Quote
Descriptions aren't always accurate but you better make sure you put anything sex related on there because people freak out.

Yes...and that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal system or Rockstar. Just because America is tight about sex doesn't change the law.   Too bad suing someone over not accurately rating there game does have something to do with the legal system and Rockstar, otherwise you might have made a point.  Criminal law, which I think you are refering to, isn't coming into play so much as civil law.

Quote
MPAA get sued? wtf? If there was no system why would anyone be sued? and that is the significance here.

So people shouldn't be sued when they don't break any rules? What a novel idea! That's what the rest of us have been trying to show you for this whole thread. More like there was no one supposed to be responsible.  ESRB, though, not legal was designed as a system to make sure games were played only by a suitable audience.  They work together with game companies to evaluate game content.  By your own admission, AO games don't sell.  So whether Rockstar meant to or not, when they circumvented the current rating for the game and sold a couple million copies because of it, it looks bad for them.  They, since they dev'd the game, knew the content was in there.  The fact that they didn't mean for it to be discovered is moot.

Quote
This made me laugh. They aren't responsible, no but I guarantee Rockstar knows that all their copies of GTA are not landing in the hands of those over 17. Where do you even get AO games? I have never seen them anywhere. Have you? I bet it would stop kids from buying it, since they can't find it.

So...because some child will play a game, it shouldn't be sold? Not only would it stop kids from buying it, it'd stop most people from buying it. San Andreas is one of the highest selling games ever. It even sold a comparable amount to the best selling DVDs ever. The idea that because some kid might play it Rockstar shouldn't be able to sell it mkaes so little sense you're hurting my intelligence by saying it. Kids see R rated movies. Kids see PORN for goodness sake. That has zero relevancy. The game is for 17 year olds and up. You must be 17 to buy the game. Rockstar makes games for 17+, marks is 17+, stores sell it to 17+. That's their duty, and they've done it. They made what was perhaps a poor judgement call on some leftover content, that's all.  Exactly Artimus, but you just keep playing off this mistake like it is nothing.  I don't know if there is some kind of culture disconnect that is going on, but ESRB who works with Rockstar games is stating that if you consider the entire content of the game they didn't rate it to the right age group.  If Rockstar had notified ESRB ahead of time, you'd have a point, but they didn't, so you don't.  I bet if ESRB was giving Rockstar an AO rating on GTASA before the release, they'd change whatever they had to to make it M, so it would sell.

Quote
BTW, I have a single parent who has to work a lot to provide. It would be easy to play something she doesn't condone in spite of the systems being in the family room. Were you trying to imply she doesn't care for me or doesn't care for me much? Nothing is ever black or white...

I have a single mom too. Whoop de doo. If you manage to play GTA behind your parents back, that's their problem (and yours). Not Rockstar or Take Two's. Wow. Sheer insolence... I don't play filth like GTA, but the sales figures suggest that others do.  I'm telling you that your golden solution, "parents should monitor their kids", isn't a practical solution for everyone.  Maybe I'll just spell it out for you next time...

Quote
What happened is completely fair. AO ensures Rockstar won't move many more games and they had to recall. It is like a punitive fee. You just implied they code remove the code from future prints - they should have delayed the game and done that in the first place to avoid this whole ordeal.

It got hacked, and that's all. Just because of a mistake a company shouldn't have to lose money. Ridiculous. The idea that because of this GTA should be stopped from selling is, as I already pointed out over and over, stupid. There was no delay needed, they didn't imagine anyone would ever hack it, and didn't expect it ever to be sold. I'm sure they were more shocked than anyone when it was hacked. Bad judgement, nothing more.  Bad judgment, means negative consequences... I thought you said you lived in the real world earlier...

Quote
Like I said before, this is a suit specifically against Rockstar and as long as future defense attorneys know what they are doing, it won't be a precedent even if 'liberals' want it to be.

I'm so confused. Obviously this is a precident, and obviously it will be used. But what the heck does the word liberal have to do with anything? Jack Thompson is a conservative nut case. Clinton is tyring to prove herself somewhat consevrative to try and appeal to middle America for a presidental run. Being liberal has like...nothing...to do with anything here. Are you just insane? Liberal was in reference to the term nemo chose to use.  But if you must know, the city of LA is pretty liberal, but don't worry I forgive your ignorance.  After your post, I think I am insane.  It is pretty obvious from reading your post, that maybe you don't know what the difference between a civil or class action suit versus a criminal suit.  Pretty much civil suits are the result of a big corporation making a mistake.  I think that is where you keep getting stuck.  In America, that is grounds for a suit.  Bottom line Rockstar made a mistake (admitted by pretty much everyone in this thread including you several times), by being lazy or whatever you want to call it, by keeping the sex games in GTASA that the hot coffee mods unlock.  Sue-happy-America is going to do what they do best.

Edit: Fixed bold.

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: odifiendEdit: Fixed bold.

You didn't answer a single point I made. I never said there are no legal grounds for suing them, you can sue anyone for anything. My points were all related to your arguments about GTA being sold, access to the game and responsibility for ruinging the lives of children.

I'll respond again when you actually respond to my previous points.

[odifiend]

Direct me to your counterpoints because all I saw were inaccurate inferences.

[Ian Sane]

"Is that in video game law that anything on the disc that is unlocked is the consumers resposibility?"

Hot coffee isn't "unlocked".  It's a mod.  It's not like you can accidently stumble onto it by entering a weird button combo or by completing a secret objective in the game.  You have to intentionally hack the game to find it.  You have to know it's there and go after it.  I agree that the rating should cover everything unlocked in the game be it a secret code or a secret level or whatever.  But if something requires something like gameshark or for files to be fiddled with or something very "unofficial" to access it doesn't count because that's not part of the game.  If this was like an arcade game where the company had complete control over the game and thus didn't have to worry about any hacks no one would have found this.

Imagine if someone painted a mural and initially included some nudity but then realized they didn't actually want that included and painted over it but then someone else used paint remover to uncover the original image.  Is that the artist's fault?  He thought he was covering it up.  Is it his fault someone fiddled around and found abandoned material?

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Is that in video game law that anything on the disc that is unlocked is the consumers resposibility?"

Hot coffee isn't "unlocked".  It's a mod.  It's not like you can accidently stumble onto it by entering a weird button combo or by completing a secret objective in the game.  You have to intentionally hack the game to find it.  You have to know it's there and go after it.  I agree that the rating should cover everything unlocked in the game be it a secret code or a secret level or whatever.  But if something requires something like gameshark or for files to be fiddled with or something very "unofficial" to access it doesn't count because that's not part of the game.  If this was like an arcade game where the company had complete control over the game and thus didn't have to worry about any hacks no one would have found this.

Coffee Mod info

It is not like Gameshark just materialized that part of the game.  The ground work was Rockstar's and the gameshark unlocks it.  Gameshark is commercial enough that it should have crossed Rockstar's mind that it would be unlocked.  It seems also they were lying about being the ones who made it until it was also found in the PS2 version.  
It seems I was off base a little.  I thought the hot coffee mod included both PS2 and PC.  I was arguing mostly against what was on the PS2.

Quote
Imagine if someone painted a mural and initially included some nudity but then realized they didn't actually want that included and painted over it but then someone else used paint remover to uncover the original image.  Is that the artist's fault?  He thought he was covering it up.  Is it his fault someone fiddled around and found abandoned material?

I like the analogy, but you have to realize that isn't valid.  Whereas a painting you'd pretty much have to scrap what you were doing to hide the original (if paint remover wouldn't just remove all the paint...).  Rockstar had options.  In fact if they had taken the time to take it out of the PC version (where a lot of times you do get to see all game files due to the interface -i.e. negligence), they might not ever have had to go through this ordeal.

[KDR_11k]

I'm pretty sure Rockstar doesn't act as a single mind, someone from marketing said "guys, that sex scene will never pass the ESRB!" so they ordered it removed, the responsible dev just removed the trigger and thought all is fine. These aren't security critical applications and during crunch people usually don't think about consequences anymore, they just want to get it shipped, go home to get some sleep and see their family again.

Now, let's make an assumption: I make a game where female characters change their clothes (let's say, bikinis so there's not a whole lot of unseen faces) a lot and I have enough system ressources at my disposal to model their entire bodies. So I make the entire bodies and add clothing models over that, opting not to remove unseen faces because of time constraints and not wanting to save the body again for each piece of clothing (could be a whole lot of data if the models are detailled enough).

Someone tells the gameshark to remove the clothing models that are put on the girls and uncovers "nude" bodies (perhaps replacing the texture on the clothes with a texture that's zero alpha all over). Would it be my fault that the characters are naked under their clothes? Hell, some games even deliberately include nude skins (Zanzarah had one in the demo) yet noone raises a fuss about that.

How about country-specific censorship? What if the user pokes a byte or two to reenable the fatalities and blood in a game rated 16 here? What if said game was called "Unreal Tournament 2003" and the bytes to poke were the "language=det" line in the UT2003.ini? Nope, no outrage.

If the user starts poking random bytes in your code or datafiles you CANNOT guarantee what will happen. If it wipes his memory card that's his fault. If it sends threatening emails to the FBI and gets him jailed that's his fault. It's like suing Ford because their car engines explode if you fire a few 30mm DU rounds through them. It's misuse of the program.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm pretty sure Rockstar doesn't act as a single mind, someone from marketing said "guys, that sex scene will never pass the ESRB!" so they ordered it removed, the responsible dev just removed the trigger and thought all is fine. These aren't security critical applications and during crunch people usually don't think about consequences anymore, they just want to get it shipped, go home to get some sleep and see their family again.

If the user starts poking random bytes in your code or datafiles you CANNOT guarantee what will happen. If it wipes his memory card that's his fault. If it sends threatening emails to the FBI and gets him jailed that's his fault. It's like suing Ford because their car engines explode if you fire a few 30mm DU rounds through them. It's misuse of the program.

Right, I'm positive Rockstar doesn't act as a single mind but you do understand as a company they are responsible for whatever content they release, right?  The developers are just as responsible as the marketing guys who applied pressure to them or were ignorant of "just" the trigger being removed.  I'm sure this discovery is a marketing and PR nightmare- not what anyone at Rockstar had in mind.

I'm no programmer but under what sun is a commodity product like Gameshark and Action Replay seriously considered random code?  Especially when all these 'random' bytes do is unlock everything on the disk.  The days of button only cheat codes are gone - that is what the Gameshark is for.  The Gameshark has been used in this manner for most of its life and in this instance, it does unlock something that Rockstar themselves made (and apparently works - analog thrusting action, anyone?).  
Rockstar was either stupid for not considering this might happen; arrogant for thinking they'd never get busted; or just not communicating internally - either way, the responsibility is still on them.

[KDR_11k]

The communication went like "I fixed it" "Okay, next issue: We've got a gamestopping bug in the...". When your coder says "it's fixed" you let a tester check it and then move to the next point on the todo list. A coder, especially a self-taught one without security experience and a lack of sleep will not think about things like possible ways to compromise what he just wrote. This isn't any security critical software and it's on a closed system so noone has to worry about malicious user actions causing damage so checks for vulnerabilities are rare. Plus noone seriously tries to stop a user with full memory access. I don't think it was considered a high priority either because, really, who could have seen in advance that such a minor thing would create that much of a fuzz? Never mind that the ESRB's reaction was completely nonsensical and merely due to public pressure (again, agencies like that acting without rules is not something you prepare yourself for), the sane reaction would be to say "the user is at fault for this, we're not going to change the rating". This is almost as insane as giving baseless claims like Intelligent Design any consideration.

[odifiend]

KDR, my imaginary communication went is pretty similar- I do understand your stance but lack of sleep or wanting to go home or not having the proper security experience, etc, etc has never excused any company of a suit.  In fact that usually makes their situation worse.
Honestly if I worked for Rockstar, I could have told them this would blow up and be made a big deal if ever discovered.  How is it that all Nintendo's mistakes are obvious but obvious mistakes of other companies aren't?
ESRB's reaction was actually very logical.  They didn't condone or grade the mini game, they had no reason to stick to their guns especially since for them to defend their decision could mean that they too might be implicated in the suit.   ESRB is the accepted standard for grading video game content in America, after all.  What an unnecessary risk it would be to protect a company that did not fully disclose everything to them and I bet they get flack for all the time.  Public pressure is one thing but people seem to forget the potential legal pressure.  

[Ian Sane]

"ESRB's reaction was actually very logical. They didn't condone or grade the mini game, they had no reason to stick to their guns especially since for them to defend their decision could mean that they too might be implicated in the suit. ESRB is the accepted standard for grading video game content in America, after all. What an unnecessary risk it would be to protect a company that did not fully disclose everything to them and I bet they get flack for all the time. Public pressure is one thing but people seem to forget the potential legal pressure."

They didn't grade the mini-game because it's not part of the game.  They're not protecting a company that did not fully disclose everything to them.  They're protecting a company that made a legitimate mistake and were getting blamed for it as if they did it on purpose.  They're protecting the entire industry from politicians and special interest groups dictating the ratings.  The whole purpose of the ESRB was to protect the industry from those very people dictating what content is permitted.  Now the ESRB is HELPING those people.  It's only logical in the sense that being a yellow-bellied coward who lets their largely innocent collegues out to dry is logical.  It's a mistake because it negatively affects the entire industry which includes the ESRB.  It's also a mistake because it killed the credibility of the rating system.  By changing the rating that acknowledged that they were wrong.  They weren't.  They gave the correct rating for the official content of the game and I'd argue that even with Hot Coffee the game only deserved an 'M'.  But instead they wussed out and told the world "the ESRB rating system is inaccurate and flawed".

[odifiend]

Quote
The ESRB rating system helps parents and other consumers choose the games that are right for their families. ESRB ratings have two parts: rating symbols that suggest what age group the game is best for, and content descriptors that indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern.

I don't see where protecting the industry is in ESRB's mission statement in fact I'm pretty sure they were designed to protect the consumer if I am reading right...  You act like ESRB rolls on ratings all the time - this is an isolated incident and Rockstar was so innocent that they publically lied about it.  Please.
And as for ESRB being weaked in credibility, you're flat out wrong.  Nobody even cares about ESRB or thinks they are wrong (except some of the hardcore gamers in this thread).  And people who say that that content doesn't deserve an AO, should check games that do get AO ratings.  That Singles game that was advertised on IGN looked more tame than what was in GTASA.

[wandering]

Quote
That Singles game that was advertised on IGN looked more tame than what was in GTASA.

yeah, if anything the ESRB bows to industry pressure and helps the industry more than it should.

[Galford]

On a semi-related note...

Does anyone here remember the naked Kasumi hack for DOA2?
It was nothing more then a hi-poly model with no texture mapping...

Here's a link to refresh everyone's memory...
http://hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/doa/doa2.htm

[wandering]

No, but I do remember spending hours trying to unlock the topless mode in DOAX.....

[KDR_11k]

Singles included nudity with genitals and I think even visible sex. Not too sure on the last one since it's rated 16 here but I think it has to be hardcore pornography before being rated 18 just for sex.

Galford: Interesting, the costumes displayed there aren't in my version of the game (PS2, PAL, includes features listed on that site as added in Hardcore), even the lower numbers differ (e.g. evil Kasumi is outfit 2 on tht page but 3 in the game I played).

[Ian Sane]

"I don't see where protecting the industry is in ESRB's mission statement in fact I'm pretty sure they were designed to protect the consumer if I am reading right"

In reality the ESRB was created in response to controvery involving games like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat.  There was a threat of the government stepping in and enforcing ratings.  So the ESRB was created so that, like with the movie industry, the game industry could control their own content and not have to worry about politicians interfering.  Yeah the ESRB provides a service for the consumer but it also protects the industry from politicians and special interest groups that use it as a scapegoat.  The ESRB only exists because of the threat of government regulation.  So for them to reassign a rating like that for hacked game content because of pressure from politicians and special interest groups goes against the very purpose of their creation.

[odifiend]

What does it matter what ESRB was in response to?  That doesn't change what the fact that they are designed to serve the consumer and that they were created to accurately rate games.  That is their primary function - if they start catering completely to today's industry, the government would just come in and interfere.  They are kind of executive like that...
Guess what would happen if the government felt ESRB was just protecting the industry?  The exact thing that you predict might happen would just happen faster.  GTA has had the government pestering ESRB since its third installment.  ESRB has stood by Rockstar the entire way - For Rockstar to even dare to even think to put that crap in their game in the first place when they've been walking a line with the general public was just f***ing stupid.  Explain to me, Ian, why you think ESRB should be protecting Rockstar for what is so clearly their own mistake?  The 'greater good' of the industry is not really the in-depth thinking I might expect from you.
Again, they had to reassing the rating because the total content changed with the use of a product that has been on the market doing that same thing for years.  For ESRB to have defended this game and their previous rating would have undermined their credibility by putting them at odds with their real purpose as well as likely attracting legal heat.  

[Ian Sane]

"Explain to me, Ian, why you think ESRB should be protecting Rockstar for what is so clearly their own mistake?"

Because the ESRB didn't make any mistakes and the content is not officially part of the game.  There's no proof that Rockstar "deceived" the ESRB.  They just lazily left some content in the code and unfortunately for them hackers found it.  Maybe they did it on purpose but there's no actual way to prove that and old stuff is kept in code all of the time.  The ESRB should have just released a statement saying "Our rating reflected what Rockstar presented to us as the official game content.  We never know what hackers are going to do to a game and thus can't take that into account."  Such a statement would relieve the ESRB of any responsibility but without the horrible precedence of outside forces influencing the change to a game's rating.  Plus now the ESRB is responsible for mods.  They're now responsible for stuff they can't predict or foresee.  If you release a game and I mod it into a porn sim the ESRB is now under pressure to have foreseen this mod and rate the game accordingly.  By making the switch they just brought a huge amount of responsibility on themselves.  Everyone is now responsible for hacks beyond their control including the ESRB.

I can see the logic in wussying out because it's a quick fix.  But in the longterm I think it's a poor decision for everyone including the ESRB.

Rockstar are idiots though and I largely blame the whole mess on them.

[odifiend]

ESRB, if you go by their mission statement, has a little bit more responsibility that just submitting a statement.  Nobody is blaming any of this on ESRB and they aren't part of the suit.  I think everyone knows that ESRB rated it sans Gameshark use, but after investigating the entire content that Rockstar was selling to consumers, they deemed it was a more explicit game than their original rating.  Therefore they had to let the public know and update the rating.
ESRB isn't responsible for mods and neither is Rockstar - they are responsible for the product they sell to consumers, hidden or otherwise.
I still fail to see how ESRB wussied out because they changed the rating to more accurately reflect the game...  And I don't see how your statement solution would really be better.  There are obviously a lot of people upset about this and ESRB stating that they had no knowledge of it and then not doing anything is not going to keep government out of video games in the long run (or even the short run).

Rockstar is completely to blame.

[KDR_11k]

Rockstar is responsible for what they sell to the customer, yes. Rockstar isn't responsible for what the customer does with the product.

[odifiend]

That content is on the disk therefore Rockstar sold it to the customer.

[KDR_11k]

The content is completely useless as is and despite being there will not be seen by the customer.

[odifiend]

How does that change the fact that with a purchase of GTASA, the consumer is purchasing the unrated content as well?

[Artimus]

I don't get the obsession with ratings. I see kids at bad movies all the time. Kids watch the Simpsons when they're 5, Family Guy too. Ratings are information, not law enforcement. I don't even understand what is wrong with people.

[odifiend]

Ratings are law when you are talking about adult content and now in video games when something is rated M.