Gamemaker Sued Over Hidden Sex in GTA

http://enews.earthlink.net/ ^ | 27 July 2005 | staff

[JeffAtlanta]

The logic is that her son is a trial lawyer, and he went to his mom and said, "hey, will you be the lead plaintiff"? We can all make a lot of money.

You nailed it. The odds are very strong that this action was already planned BEFORE the game was purchased.

[wingnutx]

She purchased it last year.

[JeffAtlanta]

They are responsible for the code they sell. If the code is there, it is their responsibility. The fact that you need a hack to access it is irrelevant. They put the code there, so they have to answer for it.

But what should they answer for? That they put some hidden PG-13 content in a game that rated Mature Audiences (18+) only?

[Sofa King]

Video game ping!

(Lotsa stuff today)

If you want on or off this list, Freepmail me.

[steveegg]

IMO, the only difference is that Rockstar is using a medium where they could leave the code in the game, and simply remove the event to execute said code, and it would be as if the code never existed in the first place.

Oops; not only is there the "Hot Coffee" mod to activate that code on the PC, but there are cheat codes to activate it on the PS2 (and likely, by now, on XBox). Next...

Film studios can add unrated footage, true: but game makers cannot exclude certain parts of their game from being rated. That'd be completely dishonest and would render the ratings system meaningless, for starters.

The ratings system is meaningless and dishonest, as proven by Rockstar/Take Two. The ESRB takes 3 (or more) people that don't know beans about gaming or programming (in fact, they can't have any ties to the computer/video game industry), give them the resuls of a questionaire filled out by the publisher and a videotape of gameplay also provided by the publisher, and tells them to come up with a rating based on that. They don't actually play the game, and they don't take a look at the code; so it's very simple to fool the ESRB.

[steveegg]

The scenes were never meant to be accesible. The game that R* gave to the rating body is the game that was meant to be played. It is hardly fraud if someone goes back and figures out how to hack the formerly innaccesible material.

That would have flown if the "inacessable" material were only in the PS2 code. However, in the intervening 9 months between the PS2 release and the PC/XBox release, they did not remove the code from those versions, choosing instead to merely port the game as-is, complete with the "inactive" code, over to the PC and XBox versions.

[JeffAtlanta]

It's nice to see that Congress has fixed every other problem in the country and can now go after pixel nudity.

Well after holding those urgent hearings on steroids in baseball I guess this was the next most important issue in the country.

This is drives me crazy about the republican party. (The democrats are pretty much useless so I don't even hold them accountable anymore.) The border is pretty much open, property rights are under siege, the judiciary is out of control, social security is a mess, we have a back breaking national deficit, spending is out of control and China is becoming a huge problem and nudity in a video game that has a Mature rating is what is most important?

Geesh...at this rate we might as well just vote 3rd party and let the democrats back in power. At least when the democrats are in power, the republicans in congress act like conservatives.

[JeffAtlanta]

She purchased it last year.

Sure that is what she claims - it might even be true but I have my doubts.

[JeffAtlanta]

That would have flown if the "inacessable" material were only in the PS2 code.

Maybe I am missing something. Wasn't the game already rated for adults only? If not, does a rating for 14 or above specifically state that nudity or sexual scenes are not allowed? (I don't know - I'm just asking)

Many PG-13 movies have sex scenes in them (not overly graphic) and many (at least in the past) have had some nudity.

[Terpfen]

Oops; not only is there the "Hot Coffee" mod to activate that code on the PC, but there are cheat codes to activate it on the PS2 (and likely, by now, on XBox). Next...

No, there aren't any cheat codes. To activate the mod on the Xbox, you have to download the patch to your console's hard drive, meaning you have to have a modified Xbox in the first place. To use it on the PS2, and I may be wrong here, you have to use a USB key or similar device. It's easier to get working on the PC than the Xbox and PS2, and in any case, the medium I'm talking about is gaming, not the PC.

The ratings system is meaningless and dishonest, as proven by Rockstar/Take Two.

Nevermind that the retail version fits all of the guidelines for an M rating, and does not fulfill the requirements for an AO rating. I'm not saying the ESRB has the best rating system in the world, but the idea that the ratings system was flouted to begin with is BS.

[gridlock]

If the scene was never intended to be accessed, why was it there?

If y'all believe this material was left there by accident, there is no reasoning with you. The fact of the matter is that this patch suddenly became available after the initial hub-bub over this game had died down and just as it was being released on a new platform. resulting in renewed interest and increased sales. Isn't the simplest and most likely explaination for these facts that the publisher left this material in intentionally and then released the patch?

Or, to ask another question, how do y'all think the rating authority would have reacted if they were shown the sexual material and the ease with which it could be accessed prior to the initial release? Do you think they still would have given it the rating they did?

[steveegg]

To use it on the PS2, and I may be wrong here, you have to use a USB key or similar device.

Dunno about the XBox (I don't have one, so I only have a passing interest in it), but the folks at GameSpot used the Action Replay Max cheat device and a series of cheat codes to unlock it. Last I checked, neither the widely-available Action Replay Max nor the codes (you can find them yourself :-) have any sort of rating or buyer restriction attached to them.

Nevermind that the retail version fits all of the guidelines for an M rating, and does not fulfill the requirements for an AO rating.

The definition of "AO" is, "Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." Having played SA (though not with the "Hot Coffee" mod/cheat codes), it sure appears meet the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" category.

With most major brick-and-mortar retailers requiring ID for "M" games, that is a difference without a real distinction. All the "AO" rating did was get the game pulled from the Best Buys and WalMarts of the world.

Don't get me wrong; it was beyond stupid for Rockstar to keep the code in there for the PC/XBox versions. They had more than sufficient time to yank it and make sure that yanking it didn't otherwise break the game. As for the PS2 version, hindsight is usually 20/10.

[steveegg]

Maybe I am missing something. Wasn't the game already rated for adults only? If not, does a rating for 14 or above specifically state that nudity or sexual scenes are not allowed? (I don't know - I'm just asking)

See #72 for the definition of "AO", and what the practical difference between "M" (San Andreas' original rating) and "AO" is. As for "M", drop the "prolonged" and "intense" (and nudity) from the "AO" and you have most of its definition ("Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.")

[tfecw]

"Isn't the simplest and most likely explaination for these facts that the publisher left this material in intentionally and then released the patch?"

No actually the most likely explanation, as anyone who has worked in the software industry can attest to, is this:
They intended for it to part of the game, RockStar's lawyers and Upper levels said no way, the AO rating will hurt us more than the M take it out. Instead of sending it through another development cycle of requirements, development, and then testing they decided to add a few lines of code and disable it.
That's a heck of a lot easier to swallow then some tin foil scheme by Rockstar after 3 mega hits in a extremely difficult market to beat an AO rating and poison 17 year olds. Why 17 year olds? because they are the only ones this should be about. Under 17 shouldn't be playing it, and over 18 are adults.

[gridlock]

That's a heck of a lot easier to swallow then some tin foil scheme by Rockstar after 3 mega hits in a extremely difficult market to beat an AO rating and poison 17 year olds. Why 17 year olds? because they are the only ones this should be about. Under 17 shouldn't be playing it, and over 18 are adults.

So, it is your contention that anybody who uses the ratings other than in the literal way they are written is "fair game"?

If the developer wants to leave the code in, all they have to do is disclose this information to the rating authority along with an explaination of how easy it will be to defeat the disabling code through a downloadable patch. If the rating authority then wishes to release it with a lower rating, then the developer would be blameless.

But I don't think it would have happened that way, do you?

[Terpfen]

Last I checked, neither the widely-available Action Replay Max nor the codes (you can find them yourself :-) have any sort of rating or buyer restriction attached to them.

Indeed. Action Quake isn't ESRB-rated either. Shall the ESRB now be responsible for rating every downloadable mod in gaming? And I'd like to see the Gamespot article.

Having played SA (though not with the "Hot Coffee" mod/cheat codes), it sure appears meet the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" category.

Not really, as SA's violence isn't prolonged. It's certainly very common, but the game penalizes you for it (wanted stars, for example.)

All the "AO" rating did was get the game pulled from the Best Buys and WalMarts of the world.

I'd say rendering the game unable to be sold, and sticking Rockstar with millions of unusable inventory, is a pretty dramatic move, especially if there was a tacit attempt by the ESRB to deliberately rate the game M so as to not hurt the industry in the first place. (The ESRB backpedaled pretty quickly on that rating.)

They had more than sufficient time to yank it and make sure that yanking it didn't otherwise break the game.

They did, and leaving the code in the Xbox/PC versions was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen a game company do.

[JeffAtlanta]

Thanks for the clarifications on the ratings.

From your information, it does seem that the hidden sexual content would not have pushed the rating from "Mature" to "Adults Only" since sexual content is permissible under a Mature rating. (Nudity does not seem to be however).

Would be correct that the intense nature of the game that you felt would push the game to an Adults Only rating was already in the game and not hidden?

[gridlock]

They had more than sufficient time to yank it and make sure that yanking it didn't otherwise break the game.

They did, and leaving the code in the Xbox/PC versions was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen a game company do.

So, why do you suppose they did it? After being so consistently brilliant for so long they suddenly turned so stupid?

Maybe they did it on purpose!

[JeffAtlanta]

So, it is your contention that anybody who uses the ratings other than in the literal way they are written is "fair game"?

I'm not the original poster, but sure. The ratings are meant to be taken literally - that is why specific ages are mentioned.

Why do you think that it is legitimate to complain about that a about a game intended for 17 year olds being too racy for a 14 year old?

[Terpfen]

If the scene was never intended to be accessed, why was it there?

Because Rockstar may have intended San Andreas to have the minigame accessible, but could not get an M-rating with the minigame in. Therefore, they simply walled off the code, since they lacked the time to remove the code and bugtest. The last 6 months of a game's development is filled with 80-hour work weeks and continual stress on the part of programmers to complete the game's features and get the bugs worked out. It's pretty easy to see how, in the rush to finishing the game and getting it out in time for the holiday season, no one wanted to bother removing the code. As for the Xbox and PC versions, it was stupid to leave the code in, but Rockstar may have either forgotten about the fact that the code was left in, or simply didn't think anyone would find it.

The fact of the matter is that this patch suddenly became available after the initial hub-bub over this game had died down and just as it was being released on a new platform. resulting in renewed interest and increased sales.

Sorry, this train of thought comes from a position of ignorance regarding the sales of this game. GTA is a series that simply does NOT lose sales over time. At the time of San Andreas' release, the previous two games in the series were still selling strong, and selling well above the average price points of games their age. By the time of the release of the Xbox and PC versions, San Andreas had sold millions of copies and was still going strong. There was no need for Rockstar or Take-Two to stage a marketing stunt to promote this game: they simply did not need any trick to sell it. That would be like the Star Wars DVDs containing nudity, and saying that Lucasfilms put the nudity in there intentionally as a marketing stunt. It's Star Wars, and needs no underhanded marketing like that. At the same time, the GTA series is of such prominence that it does not need to be promoted in such a manner.

Do you think they still would have given it the rating they did?

No, the ESRB would've given the game an AO-rating: in fact, San Andreas is now rated AO, and Rockstar is being forced to remove the code and reprint new copies in order to have the game re-rated M. We already know that the ESRB would've rated the game AO, because they just did. Now, the reason why the code was made inaccessible is clear: because the ESRB told Rockstar that the game would be rated AO if the sex minigames were left in. Therefore, Rockstar made those minigames inaccessible.