ESRB - Neglect to Disclose Could Cost Publishers $1 Million

[fitbabits]

No doubt due in some measure to the now-infamous (and very tired) GTA Hot Coffee nonsense, the ESRB are now getting tough by threatening fines up to $1 million for publishers who neglect to disclose hidden elements in their games.

Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) has the full story (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3226&Itemid=2).

Today during a commerce hearing on Capitol Hill, the head of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board said nondisclosure of game content could soon warrant six-figure fines.

ESRB president Patricia Vance told the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, "After a game ships, if disclosure is found to have been incomplete, recent enhancements to the ESRB enforcement system will soon allow for the imposition of fines up to $1 million."

She said that the fines combined with the enormous costs involved with recalling a re-rated product would "serve as a tremendous disincentive for any publisher to even consider not disclosing all pertinent content."

The meeting became contentious when Cliff Stearns (R -FL), the hearing's chair, challenged Vance and the ESRB's system for rating games. Vance was put on the spot, trying to defend how the ESRB's board is made up of publishers; a trait that Stearns called a "conflict of interest."
Sheesh...

[Heretic Machine]

I actually agree with this. If publishers are going to bother with putting an ESRB label on the box, it should accuratly reflect all content stored on the disc. Including normally inaccessable content that publishers and developers know can easily be unlocked by modders.

Hot Coffee should of never happend.

[Thenetcase]

How can an organization that is a non-law based service FINE someone as if they ARE the law?
Or are we now in the age where you can opt into a different set of laws? If so, please sign me up for the ones negating all divorce laws.....

-TNC-

[Deathbane27]

Once again, the ESRB has proved themselves useless.

Their process works on "descriptions", but they got accurate descriptions of Oblivion's level of blood and gore and gave it a T rating, then changed it to M after they saw it. The ESRB is useless to itself.

They give a M rating for exposed female breasts, which would be the equiv. of an R rating for movies. The MPAA ratings board, however, gives this a PG-13 rating (example: Titanic). By doing this, they are saying that videogames are fundamentally different from other forms of entertainment. Fake boobs worse than real boobs? The ESRB is useless to consumers.

And now, this. A fine for non-disclosed content, even if it doesn't alter the rating. The time that the developers spend documenting everything will probably exceed the fine, plus delay the game. The ESRB is useless to developers.

Every law attempting to legislate videogame sales without legislating movie, book, and magazine sales will be stricken down as unconstitutional, and no congressman will ever attempt to create laws banning books. Well, hopefully not. Let's assume it does happen eventually. Until that day comes, the ESRB is useless to publishers.

Developers, publishers, themselves, and the public. Useless at each stage in the chain.

Publishers, slap your own labels on your boxes and call it good, stop doing business with these clowns.

[Savok]

Would you prefer the government do it Deathbane? Useless as they may be, you haven't witnessed the true face of useless bureaucracy until you give a government control of something. I'm talking both sides of the fence, each is equally useless in their own special ways.

[Deathbane27]

Would you prefer the government do it Deathbane?

You think they'll actually try? There have been revolutions in this country for less, and I'd happily join one over government censorship. :)

[Savok]

Look at the Net Neutrality crap going on, most of them are too stupid to know what day it is.

No ESRB would create a hole, and when governments see holes, they either try to fuck it or make a nest in it.

[bone_matrix]

They give a M rating for exposed female breasts, which would be the equiv. of an R rating for movies. The MPAA ratings board, however, gives this a PG-13 rating (example: Titanic). By doing this, they are saying that videogames are fundamentally different from other forms of entertainment. Fake boobs worse than real boobs? The ESRB is useless to consumers.



Boob ratings depend on how tastefull or classy it is. The boobshot in Titanc was classy, and with taste, meanwhile, that boobshot you saw in the latest horror movie, where the chick was getting railed wasn't as classy.

Not sure how they can force a fine though?

[fitbabits]

Boob ratings depend on how tastefull or classy it is. The boobshot in Titanc was classy, and with taste, meanwhile, that boobshot you saw in the latest horror movie, where the chick was getting railed wasn't as classy.

Not sure how they can force a fine though?
There was a boob shot in Titanic? WTF? Where, when?!?!?!?!

[Mr.Condescension]

There really is no way for any governing body to guarantee they've seen everything in a game, hidden or not. The MPAA is a self-governing body, just like the ESRB. They made that board in the first place to avoid lawsuits and legislation. We wouldn't like the results if they ceased to exist. I think the fine is a fabulous idea. At least it now gives a strong incentive to fully disclose.

[Deathbane27]

Not sure how they can force a fine though?

Contract law. The publisher will have to sign a contract with the ESRB to get the product rated, as they do currently. Just throw one more clause on the heap. If the publishers don't like it, they can find someone else to rate it (which they should), or not get it rated at all (movies, anyone?). There's nothing that says they can't put their own sticker on there.

[Slack3r78]

Sounds like time to start refusing ESRB rating. While EA could never do it, I see it being something somebody (as much as I hate to admit it) like Valve getting away with if they really wanted.

[Kagger]

Sounds like time to start refusing ESRB rating. While EA could never do it, I see it being something somebody (as much as I hate to admit it) like Valve getting away with if they really wanted.

Unrated things go when dvd's hit store shelves...why not games too...interesting point.

I don't like the fact about the fine, because as someone pointed out...there is so much stuff in a game. ESRB needs to have people play the dang games...not have a committee view clips.

I also get extremely aggrivated when laws using the ESRB are tried to pass. You can't enforce a third party thing like by law...gah.

[Tyrant]

Wait, so if some mischievous worker on a dev team decides to put in some hidden cooters in a game that could not possibly be seen by anyone except dedicated modders, the publisher of said game can be fined up to $1 million?

That and the blurb in the article regarding how the ESRB board is composed of publishers makes me go "gwuh?".

[ZephidsEmbrace]

As annoyed as I have been recently with the ESRB (changing Oblivion to an M rating "on second thought" was retarded), I agree with this. Honestly, just for the sake of decency. I know it'll make moving games out a little more frustrating for developers, but I think it's something that could do some good. If they start using it to prevent games from being released on "suspicion of hidden material" then they ought to fuck off. Until then, no problems here.

[Slack3r78]

Wait, so if some mischievous worker on a dev team decides to put in some hidden cooters in a game that could not possibly be seen by anyone except dedicated modders, the publisher of said game can be fined up to $1 million?
What? That could *never* happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit#Controversies.2C_Easter_eg gs_and_deleted_sections

[TrackZero]

Listen, if the ESRB wants to cover their ass to prevent legislation being passed, then by all means, penalize anyone who pulls this type of shit again.

[cppcrusader]

I'll stand behind the ESRB instituting their own penalty system for this type of thing. However, people like Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) wanting to make legislation for the FTC to impose civil penalties for the same thing is inexcusable.

[Wonka]

I'll stand behind the ESRB instituting their own penalty system for this type of thing. However, people like Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) wanting to make legislation for the FTC to impose civil penalties for the same thing is inexcusable.

What he said.

[Slack3r78]

Listen, if the ESRB wants to cover their ass to prevent legislation being passed, then by all means, penalize anyone who pulls this type of shit again.
Pulls what? As a programmer, if I comment out a section of code, it's effectively not there as far as I'm concerned. That's what Rockstar did and what caused this whole mess, and, frankly, why it's ridiculous that it's been blown to such huge proportions.

Or what? Bethesda releasing Oblivion and people digging through the code til they find some malformed 'nude' textures that were never intended for public consumption?

I'm getting the distinct impression that half the people that bitch about this kind of stuff have never done anything creative in their lives. When you do something creative, there is *ALWAYS* extra that will be thrown away, for whatever reason. Maybe you're not happy with it, maybe there wasn't enough time to polish it, maybe you decided that it wasn't appropriate for whatever reason. So you don't release it.

Claiming that it's just as bad as if it were in the work proper even when it's disabled by default is somewhat lacking in understanding of the developer's intentions. The intention of the developer in disabling content is such that is will not be there. Suggesting that someone else discovering what essentially amounts to an unreleased work in progress along the way is indicative of bad faith or deception on the part of the artists is absolutely ludicrous.

Yes, this is probably flamebait. Yes, I'm a strong free speech advocate. Yes, I've probably had too much to drink tonight. But that doesn't make the above any less valid. If there were a button in the game that said "CLICK HERE TO ENABLE OMGZOR SUPER NAUGHTY CONtENT" I might be able to understand the outrage. The fact that unlocking any of the content that's caused controversy at this point requires serious user modification of the work, and therefore, is rather clearly delineated from the developer's intent, I find myself unable to describe the situation in terms any less strong than utter bullshit.

[Samo Umer]

The fact then there were naked people hidden behind the clothes in GTA3, is something I found very hurtful and unmerciful to me. I am thinking about a lawsuit.

[Maskatron]

There was a boob shot in Titanic? WTF? Where, when?!?!?!?!

Yeah, a.k.a. the best scene in the movie. :D

[Mr.Condescension]

Wait, so if some mischievous worker on a dev team decides to put in some hidden cooters in a game that could not possibly be seen by anyone except dedicated modders, the publisher of said game can be fined up to $1 million?

That makes perfect sense. Every company is liable for the acts of its employees. What happens is that the company can then sue the employee.

[Mr.Condescension]

Pulls what? As a programmer, if I comment out a section of code, it's effectively not there as far as I'm concerned.

It might be gone as far as you're concerned, but not as far as whoever uncovers it is concerned. It's fairly simple to search for comments in code and delete them when sending the final code. You can hire an intern to do it for god's sake.

[Knite]

I was saying this to bapenguin the other day... basically this stuff has just gotten insane...

Example? Table Tennis.
The 3d models used for the men and women are both fairly accurate, and well done IMO. They also have clothing that move and flow with the motion (i.e. Cloth Dynamics). Now, what was more likely to have been done..... Make the 3d model with the clothing on, having to fake the body parts the clothing flow around, or make a 3d nude model, and then put clothing over that? The 2nd is probably easier believe it or not, AND looks better. So if they happened to make an anatomically correct 3d model now they can be fined 1 million for trying to REPLICATE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE NATURALLY?!?!

This country just seems to get stranger and stranger every year.

[Goronmon]

I am going to assume the ESRB isn't completely fucking retarded and the fine only comes into play when this "undisclosed" content would have raised the rating the ESRB would have given it. If not, well, either games are going to take forever to come out and developers spend months sifting through every line of code to make sure no "backdoors" to any hidden content are left open or the ESRB will just stop being used.

[Goronmon]

It might be gone as far as you're concerned, but not as far as whoever uncovers it is concerned. It's fairly simple to search for comments in code and delete them when sending the final code. You can hire an intern to do it for god's sake.Just because its "simple enough for an intern" doesn't mean it makes any fucking sense to have to worry about doing it.

As far as I'm concerned, games should only be rated on the content that is normally available through playing through the actual game with no alterations. Anytime a player edits the code, deletes files, downloads a "hack" or whatever, they are making a conscious decision to alter the game. It doesn't matter if the hack they download replaces one character for another or whether it replaces every model in the game. Its the same fucking thing.

[ElPresidente]

Put simply it isn't that hard for a developer to say "Do not put any hidden content in the game that would potentially violate ESRB ratings if unlocked."

It isn't that big a deal and developers are hardly stymied for it.

[Goronmon]

Put simply it isn't that hard for a developer to say "Do not put any hidden content in the game that would potentially violate ESRB ratings if unlocked."

It isn't that big a deal and developers are hardly stymied for it.What if that "hidden content" is some form of a nude model that someone gets to after some manipulation in photoshop or something? The initial article comes across as too vague for proper discussion on this, as from what it sounds, any content at all could bring about the fine.

[Lord Dongkey]

Pulls what? As a programmer, if I comment out a section of code, it's effectively not there as far as I'm concerned. That's what Rockstar did and what caused this whole mess, and, frankly, why it's ridiculous that it's been blown to such huge proportions.

Or what? Bethesda releasing Oblivion and people digging through the code til they find some malformed 'nude' textures that were never intended for public consumption?

I'm getting the distinct impression that half the people that bitch about this kind of stuff have never done anything creative in their lives. When you do something creative, there is *ALWAYS* extra that will be thrown away, for whatever reason. Maybe you're not happy with it, maybe there wasn't enough time to polish it, maybe you decided that it wasn't appropriate for whatever reason. So you don't release it.

Claiming that it's just as bad as if it were in the work proper even when it's disabled by default is somewhat lacking in understanding of the developer's intentions. The intention of the developer in disabling content is such that is will not be there. Suggesting that someone else discovering what essentially amounts to an unreleased work in progress along the way is indicative of bad faith or deception on the part of the artists is absolutely ludicrous.

Yes, this is probably flamebait. Yes, I'm a strong free speech advocate. Yes, I've probably had too much to drink tonight. But that doesn't make the above any less valid. If there were a button in the game that said "CLICK HERE TO ENABLE OMGZOR SUPER NAUGHTY CONtENT" I might be able to understand the outrage. The fact that unlocking any of the content that's caused controversy at this point requires serious user modification of the work, and therefore, is rather clearly delineated from the developer's intent, I find myself unable to describe the situation in terms any less strong than utter bullshit.

Well put. This entire situation is blown entirely out of proportion, and more than anything, stands to hurt both the dev community and the mod community.

[PacerDawn]

No, it's not put out of proportion. The Commented code analogy is way off. This wasn't commented code because that would have been impossible for a modder to activate. Commented code wouldn't have been compiled and included in the final build. This was code that was just disassociated with the main application, but it was still there, ready to run for anyone who found it. Someone found it, and that's the issue.

Also, it's not modders who are dictating the ratings of games. I see all the time how people are giving examples of modders inserting rated M stuff into games. That's NOT the case here, nor with Oblivion. The modders didn't insert anything, they activated stuff that already existed. Big difference. If the modders had inserted this from scratch, it would be a non-issue.

The ruling says, if its included on the disk, it must be included in the rating decision. I see no problem with that.

If someone is too lazy to cut that stuff out before the disk goes gold, that is their fault. Or, if something like Hot Coffee goes out by accident, then that is inept project management. Again, their fault.

[Goronmon]

Also, it's not modders who are dictating the ratings of games. I see all the time how people are giving examples of modders inserting rated M stuff into games. That's NOT the case here, nor with Oblivion. The modders didn't insert anything, they activated stuff that already existed. Big difference. If the modders had inserted this from scratch, it would be a non-issue.It doesn't matter if they create the content from scratch or not. Its still altering the game was meant to be played. Plus its not like most people who download Hot Coffee or whatever really care about the difference.

The ruling says, if its included on the disk, it must be included in the rating decision. I see no problem with that. I find it more unnecessary then wrong. Its adding another layer of complexity to an already complex situation.

If someone is too lazy to cut that stuff out before the disk goes gold, that is their fault. Or, if something like Hot Coffee goes out by accident, then that is inept project management. Again, their fault.Its not that they are too lazy or inept, its that it shouldn't be something they should have to worry about.

[IagoTheHunted]

I think this is stupid and smallminded on the part of the ESRB for reasons that people have already been touching on, but I don't think the heart of the matter is addressed...

To me this is about format and security. In the past ratings have only applied to what-you-see-is-what-you-get formats like video, magazines, TV, etc. These are reletively transparent mediums. Aside from sneaking in single-frame nudy pics or something there's really no way to have hidden content. These are SECURE mediums, and they have ratings that are written in stone. Great.

Video games are by their nature insecure. It's impossible to see everything without having programmers read through every line of thousands of pages of code and carfully figure out what it all does. It would take YEARS. So that's out, you can't see it all, you need to trust the developers. But that's really as far as the ESRB is willing to go? Just push the problem on publishers and threaten a huge fine? That's crap, because publishers can't do anything about the problem either. If an employee wants to sneak something into the game that's hidden and inaccesable they can and will always be able to. The end. It's easy and impossible to stop. The medium is not transparent and it's not secure. People need to be educated to the inherent risk instead of throwing blame around.

The ESRB should just rate the off-the-shelf content of the game and include a warning like on cigs "The ESRB warns that all games carry a risk of hidden content, modifying this game in any way voids the rating".

Simple. Anything else is just throwing around blame instead of trying to do something about the "problem".

[TyphoidMarty]

Pulls what? As a programmer, if I comment out a section of code, it's effectively not there as far as I'm concerned. That's what Rockstar did and what caused this whole mess, and, frankly, why it's ridiculous that it's been blown to such huge proportions.

Or what? Bethesda releasing Oblivion and people digging through the code til they find some malformed 'nude' textures that were never intended for public consumption?

Couldn't agree more. I am also a programmer. If I made a game where I commented something out so that it will not be seen by Joe Public under any circumstances and some asshat comes along and puts it back in, how is that any different to them just adding in a new skin of their own?

People were doing that years ago with The Sims and that didn't make any big stir.


Yes, this is probably flamebait. Yes, I'm a strong free speech advocate. Yes, I've probably had too much to drink tonight.
This idiocy makes me want a skinful myself.

I think ESRB might have pushed themselves out with that one. If I were in a precarious position where noone took me seriously, I would think twice before I held up a big stick and said my way ... or ... find someone else!

Yeah that told them. Damned kids. Stay off my lawn.

[TyphoidMarty]

It might be gone as far as you're concerned, but not as far as whoever uncovers it is concerned. It's fairly simple to search for comments in code and delete them when sending the final code. You can hire an intern to do it for god's sake.
You can also use existing textures as an example and make yourself something entirely new. Either one is easy. That is why so many games are modded.

[Savok]

The ESRB should just rate the off-the-shelf content of the game and include a warning like on cigs "The ESRB warns that all games carry a risk of hidden content, modifying this game in any way voids the rating".
Only devs would use that to slip stuff under the radar on purpose and make a lot of ratings meaningless. That said, it's the best idea so far.

[Goronmon]

Only devs would use that to slip stuff under the radar on purpose and make a lot of ratings meaningless. That said, it's the best idea so far.As long as its only accesible through explicit modification by the user, even if its on purpose, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Beelzebud]

I think the fine is bullshit for one reason:

It's cheaper to run an unsafe mine, or a nuclear power plant not up to safety standards, than to say or do something "offensive" in a video game or movie/tv.

[TrackZero]

I think the fine is bullshit for one reason:

It's cheaper to run an unsafe mine, or a nuclear power plant not up to safety standards, than to say or do something "offensive" in a video game or movie/tv.

Now you're hitting it on the head. And the reason? WELCOME TO AMERICA.

God forbid parents be parents.

[Goronmon]

Now you're hitting it on the head. And the reason? WELCOME TO AMERICA.Everyday I get more nervous that I will soon need to move out of the US in order to function on any decent level.

[Savok]

I think the fine is bullshit for one reason:

It's cheaper to run an unsafe mine, or a nuclear power plant not up to safety standards, than to say or do something "offensive" in a video game or movie/tv.
Until you get caught and sued/fined into oblivion. That's a terrible analogy.

[Slack3r78]

No, it's not put out of proportion. The Commented code analogy is way off. This wasn't commented code because that would have been impossible for a modder to activate. Commented code wouldn't have been compiled and included in the final build. This was code that was just disassociated with the main application, but it was still there, ready to run for anyone who found it. Someone found it, and that's the issue
You are aware there are means of deactivating a segment of code beyond commenting, right? Such that it'll end up physically compiled in the code, but functionally inactive in the actual program? Oh, and the fact that programmers are human beings who are often overworked and may not remember every section of code they've flagged to disable by time the gold master rolls around? Or is it okay to have an intern go in and start mucking around with your program logic just before release? You're choosing pedantry over grasping the actual point.

There's a word you may have seen several times in my previous post - intent. If content is not accessible in normal gameplay, then it was never the developer's intent for anyone to access it. Holding them accountable to a $1M fine for someone modifying the program to do something the developer never (here it is again) intended to be in the public release is absolutely blowing this out of proportion.

[AzN.Homeboy]

This kind of rule is just stupid. I can easily see developers refusing to take the kind of risk of forgetting one little thing, costing them a million.

[RMan]

If content is not accessible in normal gameplay, then it was never the developer's intent for anyone to access it.
That requires you to make some big assumptions about what is considered ‘normal’ gameplay, and the motivations of the developer. Regardless, intent is not at all the end of the story, it’s seldom a doctor’s intent to kill patients, but they can still be liable for malpractice. In short, you’re really fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, neither of the two major cases that have been discussed would have been difficult to do correctly.
ESRB needs to have people play the dang games...not have a committee view clips.
This is entirely impractical with a game, unless instead of a million dollar fine you just want to charge that much up front to rate a game (and still have something less reliable than we have now).
What if that "hidden content" is some form of a nude model that someone gets to after some manipulation in photoshop or something? The initial article comes across as too vague for proper discussion on this, as from what it sounds, any content at all could bring about the fine.
The article is just describing part of a change in the ESRB’s practices, the ESRB rating does not cover altered content, there have easily been hundreds of games released with objectionable 3rd party modified content, and the ESRB has never changed a rating based on it, AFAIK. The ESRB doesn’t care about 3rd party edited or added content, just content that was in the game.

Tell you what though, for anyone who thinks it’d be better if the rating was applied only to ‘normal’ gameplay, try writing some rules that define normal gameplay and I’ll try to come up with ways that unscrupulous developers can circumvent the rules in order to create ‘hot coffee’ style publicity stunts or otherwise undermine the ratings. Keep in mind, however, you’re still just fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, and nothing as noble as a free-speech right since this is not a free-speech issue.

[Goronmon]

That requires you to make some big assumptions about what is considered ‘normal’ gameplayNot really. Any content that is accesible only through modification by the user besides options explicitly given during the course of gameplay.

Regardless, intent is not at all the end of the story, it’s seldom a doctor’s intent to kill patients, but they can still be liable for malpractice.Terrible comparison. Games don't hurt people. A better (and still inaccurate) comparison would be a doctor being fined because a patient cut open the stitches and started stabbing at themselves.

In short, you’re really fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, neither of the two major cases that have been discussed would have been difficult to do correctly.Its not about the right to be lazy, its about making unreasonable demands. If the ESRB came out with a fine if developers didn't have 100 lines of comments for every line of actual code, you wouldn't say the programmers would be lazy for now wanting to do it.

This is entirely impractical with a game, unless instead of a million dollar fine you just want to charge that much up front to rate a game (and still have something less reliable than we have now). Now who's being "lazy"?

The article is just describing part of a change in the ESRB’s practices, the ESRB rating does not cover altered content, there have easily been hundreds of games released with objectionable 3rd party modified content, and the ESRB has never changed a rating based on it, AFAIK. The ESRB doesn’t care about 3rd party edited or added content, just content that was in the game.Umm...the Hot Coffee and Oblivion issues were content that was edited by a 3rd party.

Tell you what though, for anyone who thinks it’d be better if the rating was applied only to ‘normal’ gameplay, try writing some rules that define normal gameplay and I’ll try to come up with ways that unscrupulous developers can circumvent the rules in order to create ‘hot coffee’ style publicity stunts or otherwise undermine the ratings.Let me understand this. Unless the rules are 100% effective and cover every single loophole, they shouldn't be put into place? Give me a fucking break. At least attempt to use some logic here.

Keep in mind, however, you’re still just fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, and nothing as noble as a free-speech right since this is not a free-speech issue.Its not about lazy, its about what is reasonable.

[Slack3r78]

That requires you to make some big assumptions about what is considered ‘normal’ gameplay, and the motivations of the developer. Regardless, intent is not at all the end of the story, it’s seldom a doctor’s intent to kill patients, but they can still be liable for malpractice. In short, you’re really fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, neither of the two major cases that have been discussed would have been difficult to do correctly.
Saying that reenabling disabled content constitutes normal gameplay and is a part of the released game as available out of the box requires an even greater stretch. Like I said, if there'd been an option, button, hell, even cheat code that enabled the content, I could understand the concern. In the cases in question, however, there is *no* way to access this content without physically modifying the game files. The keyword in that sentence being *modify*. As in, requiring the action of a third party that is not the developer to gain access to.

Again, on any sufficiently complex project, which games most certainly are these days, there will be material that isn't used, for any number of reasons. Disabling this content without completely expunging every trace of it from the codebase/art repository/whatever is not an uncommon practice in many software projects. To call that laziness on the developer's part suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and isn't practical in a development environment.

So far as 'difficult to do correctly' goes, in Oblivion's case we're talking about a model/skin that was used as a base to build up other skins/clothing/etc. It doesn't surprise me that it'd end up bundled with the other art assets whatsoever. Do you honestly remember every single thing you work on?

As far as Hot Coffee goes, everything about the implementation of it says that it was basically an idea that didn't pan out. So they disabled the code. That should have been the end of story there. Again, as a developer, you almost *never* delete code outright. You never know where it might be useful later on. So you turn it off in the code - the equivalent of cutting a scene from a film.

What you're suggesting is basically equivalent to the MPAA declaring that if anything that hit the cutting room floor exceeds the rating of the released film and someone somehow comes across one of these excerpts could result in a fine for the studio.
This is entirely impractical with a game, unless instead of a million dollar fine you just want to charge that much up front to rate a game (and still have something less reliable than we have now).
What's entirely impractical? Defining the game proper as being the content available without the modification of files and art assets by a third party. What's impractical is expecting the developer to declare every bit of disabled code in the game that might be stumbled upon by a determined enough third party.

The article is just describing part of a change in the ESRB’s practices, the ESRB rating does not cover altered content, there have easily been hundreds of games released with objectionable 3rd party modified content, and the ESRB has never changed a rating based on it, AFAIK. The ESRB doesn’t care about 3rd party edited or added content, just content that was in the game.
If it's not in the game without modification, it wasn't in the game. That's exactly what the problem with this is. The ESRB is attempting to treat a third party modification as a first party release, and hold the developer liable for it.

Tell you what though, for anyone who thinks it’d be better if the rating was applied only to ‘normal’ gameplay, try writing some rules that define normal gameplay and I’ll try to come up with ways that unscrupulous developers can circumvent the rules in order to create ‘hot coffee’ style publicity stunts or otherwise undermine the ratings. Keep in mind, however, you’re still just fighting for a developer’s right to be lazy, and nothing as noble as a free-speech right since this is not a free-speech issue.
I'm really not sure if you're just trolling at this point. What part of "is not accessible without modification by someone other than the developer" (who has a vested interest in leaving the content disabled) do you not understand? It has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with blaming something on the developer that isn't their fault.

Or do you really believe that Rockstar wanted to release an embarrasingly poorly animated mini sex game with fully clothed models or that Bethesda was trying to circumvent the ESRB by sneaking an unclothed, mishaped, building block model past the ratings process? Clearly, these were entirely unscrupulous actions that couldn't have simply been left over content from the development process that never made it into the actual game. :rolleyes:

[Mr.Condescension]

...lots of intelligent things...

It's impressive to find someone whom I agree with 80-90% of the time. Kudos.

[Neosho]

It's impressive to find someone whom I agree with 80-90% of the time. Kudos.

Please tell me that's sarcasm.

Rman is going on about things that you could NEVER unlock by ANY means of playing the game the way it was intended. You could sit in front of a PS2 with a controller playing GTA:SA, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to unlock that content in ANY amount of time.

There is NO way to modify it, short of hacking the actual program itself. I will make no analogies, because people just pick them to pieces and ignore the core arguement, which is:

This content was completely unreachable through normal means. Only by modifying the based code, which is against the EULA as well, could you access this content.

It's not the publisher's fault. It's not the place of the ESRB to restate their raiting on the game based on the fact that someone illegally unlocked the originally removed content.

Furthermore, it's never as easy as it sounds to go in and "delete" commented out code. Everything is interconnected, and to have to spend time debugging code just to make sure that there's no base models that you built clothes around, removing a minigame that may or may not have a integral role in some other part of the game, is simply absurd.

If you've ever written code beyond say...oh, 500 lines, you'd understand. Or hell, for that matter, if you've ever written code in a group and tried to tweak someone else's code as well, you'd understand. It's not simply a matter of doing a /find comment delete.

[RMan]

Terrible comparison. Games don't hurt people.
The simple fact that the rating system exists indicates not everyone agrees with your assumption. It is a valid comparison, the only difference is the scope of the damage.
Its not about the right to be lazy, its about making unreasonable demands. If the ESRB came out with a fine if developers didn't have 100 lines of comments for every line of actual code, you wouldn't say the programmers would be lazy for now wanting to do it.
Umm, if they came into my house and shot my dog I’d have even a bigger problem with them. Let’s just stick to what they do, not what we can imagine they’d do if they were as stupid and evil as possible.
Now who's being "lazy"?
I was saying it’d be impractical and expensive, you should read it again. If the ESRB was required to find all the content then they’d basically have to hire an unknown number of testers and put in the kinds of hours that the public does to find all the game’s content after it’s release. That could be tens of thousands of hours, as opposed to requiring the developer to disclose the work that they did.
Umm...the Hot Coffee and Oblivion issues were content that was edited by a 3rd party.
No, it was content exposed by a 3rd party.
Let me understand this. Unless the rules are 100% effective and cover every single loophole, they shouldn't be put into place? Give me a fucking break. At least attempt to use some logic here.
Nope, no rules are 100% effective, what the ESRB is doing is way more effective than what has been suggested by those bashing them (at least what I’ve read). What I’m suggesting is you guys are not thinking things through and making snap judgments without considering the ramifications of the alternatives.
Its not about lazy, its about what is reasonable.
Asking a developer to disclose their content is completely reasonable, and the most efficient known way to get the job done.


In the cases in question, however, there is *no* way to access this content without physically modifying the game files.
Actually, we do not know that. All we know is the one way that was suggested for displaying the hidden content, nobody bothers to look further than one solution. If it becomes advantageous for companies to hide content behind ‘intent’ to expose it, then you’ll very quickly have some developers taking advantage of that and undermining the ESRB. You can think that Rockstar is an upstanding, rule-following developer uninterested in exploiting controversy if you like, but without the ratings change the ‘hot coffee’ thing would have been advantageous. When circumventing the ESRB’s ratings becomes a moneymaker more companies will do it, and the ESRB would be toothless and unreliable, and that’s what things like the fine are designed to discourage.
Do you honestly remember every single thing you work on?
The content that would violate my ESRB rating, heck yea, I’d remember it, and if I otherwise couldn’t manage it then my development skills need work. My understanding of the Oblivion thing is that it was their base female model. I mean, it was likely one of the few things that could violate the ESRB agreement, you’re telling me it’s unreasonable to ask a developer to manage that?
As far as Hot Coffee goes, everything about the implementation of it says that it was basically an idea that didn't pan out.
As long as you assume the best of them, yes, and regardless I don’t think that should be an issue with the ratings, perhaps when assessing the fine, but the ratings shouldn’t be designed around developer intent, but content.
So you turn it off in the code - the equivalent of cutting a scene from a film.
Not equivalent, or we wouldn’t be discussing it.
What's impractical is expecting the developer to declare every bit of disabled code in the game that might be stumbled upon by a determined enough third party.
No, in both these cases the content should have been removed or never added to achieve the rating they originally got. And stop painting it as if only dedicated people get to see it, this is the information age, it only requires ONE dedicated modder to expose it for everyone.
If it's not in the game without modification, it wasn't in the game.
Well, then perhaps you should post the relevant portions of the ESRB contract that explain that, I’m sure Rockstar would be interested.
What part of "is not accessible without modification by someone other than the developer" (who has a vested interest in leaving the content disabled) do you not understand? It has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with blaming something on the developer that isn't their fault.
Where do you get that the developer has an interest in keeping the content disabled? How is the content of a game not the developer’s fault/responsibility, exactly who’s would it be?

What I’m saying is define what ‘modification’ is, legally. Is entering an undocumented code modification? What about if the content only works when another piece of content is installed? Does the modification have to be a modification of the files in the game, or the addition of new files that activate content in the unmodified files. What about changing config files, that’s modifying files, but files intended for modification (we assume)? When you try to enumerate all the legally acceptable rules defining modification, it becomes clear that just saying “don’t put the content in” is the easiest and clearest method for developers, consumers, and the ESRB.
Or do you really believe that Rockstar wanted to release an embarrasingly poorly animated mini sex game with fully clothed models or that Bethesda was trying to circumvent the ESRB by sneaking an unclothed, mishaped, building block model past the ratings process?
I think there is a decent chance that the Rockstar one was intentional (again, without the ESRB rating it would have been a plus). I do not think the Oblivion one was intentional. My main point is that their intent shouldn’t be a factor in the ratings, it shouldn’t matter what I, or you think their intent was.

[Neosho]

As a side note, it is EXACTLY like stuff that's left on the cutting room floor. It gets out there, on the internet, especially if you've got some hot young actress, and no one goes after the movie production company, or the MPAA...that's just dumb. As is this.

Edit: And "Modification" covers ANYTHING that is out of the range of what you can do with a normal controller setup. PS2 makes this arguement much clearer, but on a PC that means no editing beyond changeable ingame settings. While many developers leave the tweak/config files open for people that want that, i would say that modifying the .config files can bring you in to modding territory really, really fast. See: Far Cry engine rendering changes.

You CAN NOT get to hot coffee without the mod. I've played the game to that point, she says "Let's go in for coffee" and it fades to black. If you have the minigame enabled, through a MOD, then you get an obviously incomplete minigame.

Have you ever even installed the mod? Do you understand where it would fit into the context of the story? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[Beelzebud]

Until you get caught and sued/fined into oblivion. That's a terrible analogy.

No it's not a terrible analogy at all... Look up the fines.

The fines for running an unsafe mine are on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars LESS than this suggested fine.

A company in Illinois was fined for leaking Tritium from a nuclear power plant. Their fine? 10,000 dollars. Wow.

Look into the facts before you say my analogy was terrible. The only thing terrible is that I have a point. I wish I were wrong...

What's more dangerous? An unsafe mine, an unsafe nuclear power plant, or Hot Coffee for GTA, or Janet Jackson's boobs?

[Goronmon]

What's more dangerous? An unsafe mine, an unsafe nuclear power plant, or Hot Coffee for GTA, or Janet Jackson's boobs?The answer is E. Snakes on a plane.

[Slack3r78]

Actually, we do not know that. All we know is the one way that was suggested for displaying the hidden content, nobody bothers to look further than one solution. If it becomes advantageous for companies to hide content behind ‘intent’ to expose it, then you’ll very quickly have some developers taking advantage of that and undermining the ESRB. You can think that Rockstar is an upstanding, rule-following developer uninterested in exploiting controversy if you like, but without the ratings change the ‘hot coffee’ thing would have been advantageous. When circumventing the ESRB’s ratings becomes a moneymaker more companies will do it, and the ESRB would be toothless and unreliable, and that’s what things like the fine are designed to discourage.
It's nigh impossible to ensure anything with software and computers. About the only thing that can actually be proven to always work in a specific manner are critical systems like those in avionics which use old, simpler hardware, are written in C or assembly, and must go through a certifications process that literally takes years. I think it goes without saying that a development process like that is completely infeasible in most fields, especially game development.

So yes, I'll concede it might be possible through some bug or hardware quirk to access the disabled content, but that doesn't suddenly make it a part of the work proper. You can also use a copy of Phantsy Star Online to stream pirated games from a PC to a GameCube, but I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest that's intended behavior. Without evidence of complicity on the part of the developer, I fail to see disabled content unlocked through the actions of a third party as the developer's problem.

The content that would violate my ESRB rating, heck yea, I’d remember it, and if I otherwise couldn’t manage it then my development skills need work. My understanding of the Oblivion thing is that it was their base female model. I mean, it was likely one of the few things that could violate the ESRB agreement, you’re telling me it’s unreasonable to ask a developer to manage that?
Given the nature of the GTA series, most of the content developed pushes some boundries ratings wise. I don't see why it's unthinkable that an overworked developer just plain wouldn't remember a one off minigame that had been scrapped when he's got greater concerns during cruch time to get the game out the door. While your suggestion that a less than scrupulous developer could intentionally hide inappropriate content for someone to 'find' later, I've yet to see anything to suggest either the Hot Coffee or Oblivion incidents would have been such. The state of the content alone should make that clear.

I'm not entirely familiar with the ratings process with the ESRB, but it wouldn't surprise me that it's entirely unlike the MPAA's rating system where it's exceedingly common to send a film for re-review several times, modifying content until you get the rating you want.

So yes, when you don't know what the ESRB is going to object to ahead of time (which is the entire reason the games are submitted for review and not simply self-rated), expecting the developer manage and track every single throw away idea and art asset involved in the production of the game is absolutely unreasonable, when they have no intention of submitting such for review because they have no intention of it being in the final product.

Again, if you don't understand why this expectation is too much and would add an huge cost in both time and money to any project, you're clueless about how software development works. I don't know any nicer way of putting that.

As long as you assume the best of them, yes, and regardless I don’t think that should be an issue with the ratings, perhaps when assessing the fine, but the ratings shouldn’t be designed around developer intent, but content.
So then why should the ratings reflect inaccessible content?

No, in both these cases the content should have been removed or never added to achieve the rating they originally got. And stop painting it as if only dedicated people get to see it, this is the information age, it only requires ONE dedicated modder to expose it for everyone.
It only took one dedicated modder to create Garry's mod. It's still a third party modification. The fact that it can be distributed by these third parties as well isn't the developer's fault.

Well, then perhaps you should post the relevant portions of the ESRB contract that explain that, I’m sure Rockstar would be interested.
I could ask you to do the same. The whole reason there's such a controversy over this is because many people feel like the ESRB changed the rules after they took a little heat. I'm willing to bet there's a clause in the contract that the decision is basically the ESRB's and their decision is binding.

Where do you get that the developer has an interest in keeping the content disabled? How is the content of a game not the developer’s fault/responsibility, exactly who’s would it be?
Where do you get that it's in the developer's interest to reenable unfinished, untested code? It's not the developer's responsibilty because it was never enabled in the shipping product.

What I’m saying is define what ‘modification’ is, legally. Is entering an undocumented code modification? What about if the content only works when another piece of content is installed? Does the modification have to be a modification of the files in the game, or the addition of new files that activate content in the unmodified files. What about changing config files, that’s modifying files, but files intended for modification (we assume)? When you try to enumerate all the legally acceptable rules defining modification, it becomes clear that just saying “don’t put the content in” is the easiest and clearest method for developers, consumers, and the ESRB.
As someone else pointed out, there's almost always a clause in EULAs defining modification. More specifically, they usually define and forbid reverse engineering of the program -- which is exactly what the Hot Coffee fiasco falls under. If the developer has not only disclaimed the modification of the program executable, but also specifically forbidden you from doing such as a condition of use of the software, how is it the developer's fault when someone ignores their license and does it anyway?

I think there is a decent chance that the Rockstar one was intentional (again, without the ESRB rating it would have been a plus). I do not think the Oblivion one was intentional. My main point is that their intent shouldn’t be a factor in the ratings, it shouldn’t matter what I, or you think their intent was.
Again, I think given the state of the content and how long it took between the release of the game and the release of the Hot Coffee mod that's it's highly unlikely that the enabling of that content was intentional on Rockstar's part. But that's beside the point.

My point is that if the content cannot be accessed without modification, it shouldn't become a liability for the developer in the ratings process. I'm not sure that I can state it any simpler than that.

[RMan]

As a side note, it is EXACTLY like stuff that's left on the cutting room floor. It gets out there, on the internet, especially if you've got some hot young actress, and no one goes after the movie production company, or the MPAA...that's just dumb. As is this.
Still stupid, not the same, and this is the last time I will respond to what is obviously a poor attempt at an analogy. You suggest that it’s the same because the stuff can get out there through a means other than the distribution of the product. The movie industry doesn’t rate all elements created during the making of a film, and nether does the ESRB, just that which is shipped with the product.
PS2 makes this arguement much clearer, but on a PC that means no editing beyond changeable ingame settings.
Does this apply to changes made to the files under the specific conditions laid out in the ESRB rating, universally? For instance, if a file is modified by a 3rd party application automatically, like a virus quarantine, is the content un-ratable? Keep in mind, now you’ve defined the ratings as such that an unscrupulous developer can creatively and intentionally circumvent the ratings. Under the current system, especially with the fines, it’s not worth it.
Have you ever even installed the mod? Do you understand where it would fit into the context of the story? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
I have not played the mod, I do not know how it fits into the story, and yes, I know what I’m talking about. The fact is that the developer intent and it’s place in the story is irrelevant, the CONTENT is what matters, that’s what the ESRB rates.
The fines for running an unsafe mine are on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars LESS than this suggested fine.
FYI, this is a MAXIMUM fine, not a suggested one. Comparing the lowest fine you’ve heard of to the maximum fine possible is not reasonable.
Without evidence of complicity on the part of the developer, I fail to see disabled content unlocked through the actions of a third party as the developer's problem.
Again, ESRB rating does not rate intent. Intent should be a factor in determining how much of that max million dollar fine is levied, but the rating is about content.
While your suggestion that a less than scrupulous developer could intentionally hide inappropriate content for someone to 'find' later, I've yet to see anything to suggest either the Hot Coffee or Oblivion incidents would have been such. The state of the content alone should make that clear.
There’s nothing conclusive in either, I’m sure you’d never see proof of intent, but the ratings shouldn’t require that. What I’m saying is that ‘hot coffee’ would have been a profitable mistake/stunt (pick which one you like) if not for the ratings change, without a doubt developers would do it more without repercussions.
So yes, when you don't know what the ESRB is going to object to ahead of time (which is the entire reason the games are submitted for review and not simply self-rated), expecting the developer manage and track every single throw away idea and art asset involved in the production of the game is absolutely unreasonable, when they have no intention of submitting such for review because they have no intention of it being in the final product.
I shouldn’t have to say this again, please pay attention. They rate WHAT IS SHIPPED WITH THE GAME, not every asset involved in it’s production. What they require is entirely reasonable.
Again, if you don't understand why this expectation is too much and would add an huge cost in both time and money to any project, you're clueless about how software development works. I don't know any nicer way of putting that.
A more accurate way of putting it is that I have higher standards and practices for asset management than you.
So then why should the ratings reflect inaccessible content?
Well, in the two major cases we’ve discussed they haven’t.
It only took one dedicated modder to create Garry's mod. It's still a third party modification. The fact that it can be distributed by these third parties as well isn't the developer's fault.
Don’t recall the ESRB, or me, suggesting that it would be their fault. But there’s the big point, there’s two instances we know of, out of thousands of ESRB rated games. Never once has the ESRB, to my knowledge, rated a game based on a mod, but some of you guys keep throwing that up, like it’s relevant. Look at the big picture, the bulk of developers aren’t in danger of getting any fine, much less anything near the maximum fine, because most developers are plenty capable of such simple asset management. The current system is not a serious problem as some of you like to suggest.
I could ask you to do the same. The whole reason there's such a controversy over this is because many people feel like the ESRB changed the rules after they took a little heat. I'm willing to bet there's a clause in the contract that the decision is basically the ESRB's and their decision is binding.
Actually, I’m not sure it’s legal to post my ESRB contract, and I don’t feel like digging it up and reading it again. Going from memory, though, it asks you to disclose the content, and does not enumerate the acceptable methods by which the content is displayed. I see absolutely no evidence they changed anything, only that they actually enforced the rules of their contract (I have no doubt that if they ‘changed’ their contract as you suggest, Rockstar would have sued them or avoided the recall). I remember no clause in my contract that said they could change the rating after it was issued unless I failed to hold up my end of the contract.
Where do you get that it's in the developer's interest to reenable unfinished, untested code?
The ‘hot coffee’ thing would have been profitable if not for the recall, you can disagree if you like, but it seems clear to me.
As someone else pointed out, there's almost always a clause in EULAs defining modification.
That’s a completely different legal agreement than the ESRB contract.
My point is that if the content cannot be accessed without modification, it shouldn't become a liability for the developer in the ratings process. I'm not sure that I can state it any simpler than that.
You can’t, I’m just saying you’re wrong legally, and IMO you’re wrong logically (at least as far as what’s the best solution for everyone involved).

[balamoor]

when governments see holes, they either try to fuck it or make a nest in it.



THIS MAN HAS SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES! :rolleyes:

[Neosho]

Does this apply to changes made to the files under the specific conditions laid out in the ESRB rating, universally? For instance, if a file is modified by a 3rd party application automatically, like a virus quarantine, is the content un-ratable? Keep in mind, now you’ve defined the ratings as such that an unscrupulous developer can creatively and intentionally circumvent the ratings. Under the current system, especially with the fines, it’s not worth it.

I'm ignoring the analogies, cause they never serve any real purpose...people always take them a different way.

And yes, it applies to any change of the files. You point about virus quarantines is absurd, because a virus quarantine in no way will unlock previously locked content or otherwise change the content of the game.

They EXPRESSLY FORBID reverse engineering. It's ILLEGAL. You cannot do it. Hot Coffee is an illegal mod to an existing piece of software. Thusly, it should NOT be a reason that the ESRB changes ratings. There is NO way for it to be unlocked with normal play. Thusly, it should have no bearing on the rating of the game. If unscrupulous modders take advantage of textures and skins to make nude skins, then the rating doesn't change. The only difference here is that an unfinished minigame was unlocked, rather than being put in by the modders. It's not a matter of if they intended to do it or not, it was not possible to unlock it through standard gameplay. Thusly, it should not be rated. A rating should only cover what is accesable by playing the game, not what people can change, mod, or unlock through modification of code.

[RMan]

Again, you are missing the point. I’m talking about developers taking advantage of your proposed rating system, which is based only on content accessible with unmodified files, I’m not talking about moders changing content. I’m talking about developers developing content that they intend to be later discovered and circumventing the ESRB’s ratings. In this case, I was suggesting unlocking content based on the modification of a file they expect to be modified, thus sidestepping the ‘unmodified file’ rule.

[Neosho]

Again, you are missing the point. I’m talking about developers taking advantage of your proposed rating system, which is based only on content accessible with unmodified files, I’m not talking about moders changing content. I’m talking about developers developing content that they intend to be later discovered and circumventing the ESRB’s ratings. In this case, I was suggesting unlocking content based on the modification of a file they expect to be modified, thus sidestepping the ‘unmodified file’ rule.
What purpose would there be in taking advantage of the ESRB like that though?

[RMan]

What purpose would there be in taking advantage of the ESRB like that though?
'hot coffee' - rating change = free publicity
Like it or not, you take away the rating change and you have controversy and increased interest/buzz, and that's good for selling games.

[Neosho]

So you're saying that for free publicity, they will include content that will be unlocked by virus scanners or some other program quartining a file, that would change the rating?

If they want free money/publicity, why not just call their company phantom 2? Seriously...that's just dumb.

[RMan]

So you're saying that for free publicity, they will include content that will be unlocked by virus scanners or some other program quartining a file, that would change the rating?
I'm saying by your standard the ESRB wouldn't be able to change the rating. Seriously, for whatever reason I don't think you're trying to understand here, so I'm moving along. If intelligent responses indicating an attempt to understand the problem arise, I'll likely respond, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

[Neosho]

Who ever said that the ESRB was banned from changing ratings? All i'm saying is that rating should not be changed by 3rd party modifications of any sort, ever, period! What 3rd parties do with a program has NOTHING to do with the developer, even if that content was built in and then locked away in such a way that it could not be unlocked in standard gameplay.

For an example of this, see the sims and their "nude patches". The developer included nudity, but removing the meshes didn't suddenly up the rating.

[RMan]

Who ever said that the ESRB was banned from changing ratings?
If the contract was worded the way you suggested, the ESRB would be unable to enforce a ratings change because no breech of contract could be established when a developer intentionally hides content.
All i'm saying is that rating should not be changed by 3rd party modifications of any sort, ever, period!
Technically, the rating is not being changed by a 3rd party, the 3rd party is simply exposing content that should have been considered in the rating in the first place. The modification exposes a breech of contract by the developer. I understand what you're saying, but you, and seemingly many others opposing the ESRB's methods seem unnable to see the difference between content exposed by 3rd parties, and content added by 3rd parties. There is a huge difference between the two.

[Neosho]

No, there really isn't. If something was not unlockable through normal gameplay, then as far as i'm concerned, it's not in the game. If you could enter some code to unlock it, then i would be right there with you. But as it is, there is no way to unlock said materials, without hacking the game. As hacking the game is forbidden by the EULA, there is no reason that rockstar should be accountable for it.

Edit: It should not be included because it's NOT POSSIBLE TO GET THERE.

If you're hacking the game, you're going above and beyond the typical levels, illegally moding the code, they're no longer responsible for what you find.

[RMan]

No, there really isn't. If something was not unlockable through normal gameplay, then as far as i'm concerned, it's not in the game.
Well, then start your own ratings organization, and see how that pans out. I’ll stick with the ESRB’s method.

[Neosho]

Well, then start your own ratings organization, and see how that pans out. I’ll stick with the ESRB’s method.

Do you support institutions regardless of how absurd their mandates get? I can easily see the potential for abuse here...all some enterprising modder has to do is say "I found this shit in their game" and suddenly that publisher is fucked, for the tune of up to 1 million $, simply because some dude used their resources in a way they didn't anticipate.

[Savok]

No it's not a terrible analogy at all... Look up the fines.

The fines for running an unsafe mine are on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars LESS than this suggested fine.

A company in Illinois was fined for leaking Tritium from a nuclear power plant. Their fine? 10,000 dollars. Wow.

Look into the facts before you say my analogy was terrible. The only thing terrible is that I have a point. I wish I were wrong...

What's more dangerous? An unsafe mine, an unsafe nuclear power plant, or Hot Coffee for GTA, or Janet Jackson's boobs?
And how much money went under the table in bribes to avoid getting the book thrown at them? How about settlements with NDAs from sick employees?

Official numbers mean squat.

[Goronmon]

Basically RMan, your only real argument for this fine by the ESRB is that "Else the devs will take advantage of the system!". Except there has never been a fine in place before, and there have never been any instances where a company "unlocked" dead code to boost ratings, so its pretty much just some FUD BS when it comes down to it.

Your arguments that its hard to define "modification" are thin at best, and the only proof you have is that you've decided it must be true. How can one argue against that?

[RMan]

Basically RMan, your only real argument for this fine by the ESRB is that "Else the devs will take advantage of the system!".
Ugh, no, if you take some time out and actually read what I say, you’ll see that the argument for devs taking advantage was regarding the proposed change to allow developers to leave content in if it wasn’t accessible without file modification. The fine is just disincentive beyond a rating change.
Except there has never been a fine in place before, and there have never been any instances where a company "unlocked" dead code to boost ratings, so its pretty much just some FUD BS when it comes down to it.
Yea, again, I think the current system works. The current system DOESN’T allow mods to do this, you really should read my posts before commenting on them.
Your arguments that its hard to define "modification" are thin at best, and the only proof you have is that you've decided it must be true. How can one argue against that?
You can try to propose a set of rules regarding mods that I can’t break with clever programming (good luck with that). As I said, a moderately clever programmer, like a clever lawyer with regards to the law, can abuse a loophole like that and undermine the integrity of the system.

BTW, If you’re going to argue that the system is working fine, then shut up about changing it to allow mod accessible content.

[Goronmon]

BTW, If you’re going to argue that the system is working fine, then shut up about changing it to allow mod accessible content.I have never argued that the rules should be changed to allow mod accessible content. I have only argued:

1. The fine is unreasonable.
2. Holding devs responsible for content edit/added by a third party is unreasonable.
3. The assertion that its easy to remove unneeded content from a game before shipping.
4. The assertion that developers who don't remove said content are just being lazy or are poorly managed.

If you want to infer that I am up for this supposed rule change, go right ahead, but I have never mentioned anything like that in any of my posts. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.

Edit: I'll clarify a bit more. I did argue that its silly to dismiss any sort of rule like you suggested just because you may be able to find loopholes. I wasn't implying that there need to be new rules put in place. If there was any confusion on this issue, I apologize.

[RMan]

It's a bit confusing when you suggest modifications can be well defined, but you're not defending the rule change suggested and discussed. To respond to your points though…
1. It’s a max fine, like when you screw up on your taxes, you don’t get charged a maximum fine. When unreasonable fines are being levied, I’ll call it unreasonable, but the simple truth is that if the max fine was $100K large publishers wouldn’t care.
2. I agree, and so does the ESRB.
3. So far the vast majority of games have no problem with it.
4. Compared to everything else you have to do to make a game, it is easy, and again, most devs have no problems with it.

[Neosho]

1. It’s a max fine, like when you screw up on your taxes, you don’t get charged a maximum fine. When unreasonable fines are being levied, I’ll call it unreasonable, but the simple truth is that if the max fine was $100K large publishers wouldn’t care.
2. I agree, and so does the ESRB.
3. So far the vast majority of games have no problem with it.
4. Compared to everything else you have to do to make a game, it is easy, and again, most devs have no problems with it.

1. It's not really the fine, it's the concept overall.
2. The ESRB obviously does not agree, because hot coffee was reinstated through the use of a 3rd party patch or hacker.
3. Actually, there's loads of stuff that's in the code that you have no way of seeing unless you actually look into it. Plenty of stuff is there, it's just that most developers don't tend to push the envelope the way rockstar does. Unfinished levels, little bonuses, odd minigames...hell, they go as far back as Doom2, having rooms with pictures on the inside, that you can't see without a noclip hack.
4. Considering neither you nor i have any experience with actually making a game, i'd have to say that we're in no position to say how easy or hard it is to do this. Furthermore, since you apparently have no programming experience, allow me to tell you that in any large program, with interconnected code, cutting a random chunk out of it can easily have far reaching reprecussions. As someone has said before, it's not simply a matter of "commenting out" or "having the intern delete lines of code". All of the art assets are interconnected, so are the animations, the sounds, movement controls, so on and so forth...it's just not that easy.

[RMan]

1. It's not really the fine, it's the concept overall.
Well, fining companies is the primary way we keep them in line in this country, it’s hardly unique or new.
2. The ESRB obviously does not agree, because hot coffee was reinstated through the use of a 3rd party patch or hacker.
You should read what you’re saying. The content was there, and the 3rd party neither edited or added the objectionable content, just reinstated easy access to it. The content was there, the 3rd party had nothing to do with that.
4. Considering neither you nor i have any experience with actually making a game, i'd have to say that we're in no position to say how easy or hard it is to do this.
Ok, I’ve been involved with many commercial games, and have been the lead developer on several. I’ve been developing professionally for many years, so try to keep your stupid assumptions in check. Therein lies the problem, you got your Rockstar fanboy t-shirt on and don’t understand the process at all, so unless you express that you have capacity and desire to learn this is the last post in which I will try to school you. If minigames are being developed without project leads knowing about it, then Rockstar has a problem. If minigames are then being cut and the project lead (or anyone involved in project management) doesn’t know about it, Rockstar has a problem. If Rockstar’s organization and development skills are so half-assed that they aren’t aware of what’s been developed then cut (and the method by which it was cut), they need to be fined out of the business. The bottom line is that it happened because Rockstar didn’t care enough to do the job right, developers deal with the same thing with copyrighted materials, except it’s FAR harder to manage that, but I bet they did their job on that. Now that there are clear financial ramifications to doing half-assed work like that, more than likely Rockstar will not make that mistake again, and far less others will as well.

[Neosho]

Well, fining companies is the primary way we keep them in line in this country, it’s hardly unique or new.

It's not the concept of the fine, it's the concept that a developer can be fined for content that they have removed from a game. Way to miss the point.

You should read what you’re saying. The content was there, and the 3rd party neither edited or added the objectionable content, just reinstated easy access to it. The content was there, the 3rd party had nothing to do with that.

They did, indeed, add the objectional content, because it wasn't accessable before. If it had been, this entire arguement would be moot. However, it was utterly, completely inaccessable without illegally modifying the code. Regardless of if the content was present or not, it was COMPLETELY UNACCESSABLE. Read that a few times, and then come back. If it's completely unaccessable without hacking the program, it should not matter for the ESRB. They're rating games, an end product, and the minigame was disabled, and not part of the final release.

Maybe it would help if i said they didn't reinstate easy access to it, they reenabled it. As in it wasn't enabled before...see?

Ok, I’ve been involved with many commercial games, and have been the lead developer on several. I’ve been developing professionally for many years, so try to keep your stupid assumptions in check. Therein lies the problem, you got your Rockstar fanboy t-shirt on and don’t understand the process at all, so unless you express that you have capacity and desire to learn this is the last post in which I will try to school you. If minigames are being developed without project leads knowing about it, then Rockstar has a problem. If minigames are then being cut and the project lead (or anyone involved in project management) doesn’t know about it, Rockstar has a problem. If Rockstar’s organization and development skills are so half-assed that they aren’t aware of what’s been developed then cut (and the method by which it was cut), they need to be fined out of the business. The bottom line is that it happened because Rockstar didn’t care enough to do the job right, developers deal with the same thing with copyrighted materials, except it’s FAR harder to manage that, but I bet they did their job on that. Now that there are clear financial ramifications to doing half-assed work like that, more than likely Rockstar will not make that mistake again, and far less others will as well.
Uhh...no. I have a strong feeling that what happened is they made this minigame, decided that it was either pushing the boundries too far, or that it wasn't appropriate, and in the interests of getting the product out the door, they disabled it and moved on. Considering that their EULA expressly forbids modifying the game code, and that disabling it however they did made it impossible to access it through normal play, they took all of the necessary steps to protect themselves. If they have a rogue programmer that did it, then he should be the one that takes the hit, not the publisher, and that would make more sense, given their slightly odd actions when the thing was released (denying it entirely rather than pointing at the EULA and how it's illegal to reverse modify their code).

That's nice that you're a developer...have you ever worked hands on with any of the coding? :rolleyes:

Allow me to state this clearly. The game was disabled in a way that made it utterly, completely unaccessable through playing the game.

A 3rd party mods is REQUIRED to enable it. How is that not the actions of the 3rd party changing the content of the game?

[RMan]

That's nice that you're a developer...have you ever worked hands on with any of the coding? :rolleyes:
Uhh, yea, plenty, well over ten years worth of programming experience. Got any other stupid assumptions?
A 3rd party mods is REQUIRED to enable it. How is that not the actions of the 3rd party changing the content of the game?
They're changing something in the game, not the content that's actually responsible for the rating. Look, you're either a fool, or you refuse to understand what is really quite clear. Feel free to make whatever uninformed followup you like, I've plenty of better things to do than discuss something with someone who doesn’t listen, and have already wasted too much time responding to ignorant rhetoric.

[Neosho]

Uhh, yea, plenty, well over ten years worth of programming experience. Got any other stupid assumptions?

So how do you not understand the point i'm making? It's not as simple as deleting some random lines of code. For someone with "years of experience" you sure seem a bit lacking.

They're changing something in the game, not the content that's actually responsible for the rating. Look, you're either a fool, or you refuse to understand what is really quite clear. Feel free to make whatever uninformed followup you like, I've plenty of better things to do than discuss something with someone who doesn’t listen, and have already wasted too much time responding to ignorant rhetoric.
If something is inaccessable, how is it part of the game? Inacessable is not a part of the game. Only after a 3rd party modification is it possible for it to be enabled. This is the very definition of a mod...something that changes the content of a game.

You're like the damn energizer bunny...you don't have a point but you continue with silly attacks, and name calling. Have a valid point next time.