Rockstar Statement on GTA:SA Sex Mini-game [Archive]

TomO

07-13-2005, 04:30 AM

The alleged sex mini-game on the GTA San Andreas game disc, unlocked using the "Hot Coffee" mod, has been the news story of the week, with several investigations now underway to determine if the allegations are true. Having kept pretty quiet on this issue, Rockstar has now issued a statement (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/nid/88/1073/) clarifying their situation.

"So far we have learned that the "hot coffee" modification is the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game," reads the statement. "In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code. Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code, we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered by the 'hot coffee' modification."

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 05:21 AM

With numerous investigations under way on what is now a very high profile case, it may be some time until a verdict is reached.
Give...me...a...break... :rolleyes:

Tricky Thumb

07-13-2005, 05:33 AM

Yeah it's such a hard case to decipher, I feel sorry for the judge that has to put this puzzle together.

Varsity

07-13-2005, 05:33 AM

This statement goes against what the modder responsible for "Hot Coffee" has said, claiming the sex mini-game was merely made available using the patch and no additional content was added.No it doesn't. It does everything BUT deny that. This is, to us not constrained by legal procedures and with the benefit of intuition, Rockstar pleading guilty.

Rone

07-13-2005, 05:34 AM

Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code...
Uh huh. All you really need is a simple memory or savegame modifier.

At least our elected officials are doing their jobs in protecting us from the corruptive influence of 3D character models and animation routines.

<JEDI>~ASH

07-13-2005, 05:37 AM

This is just sad.
Can someone make this sex game in Half life 2 with Gord and that Sassy lass Alyx please, those are some nice character models at least. =)

King Drewsky

07-13-2005, 05:38 AM

I don't get it. The content that is currently in the game (cop-killing, drug-use, violence towards women) is a hell of a lot worse than a guy and his girl making love.

Rone

07-13-2005, 05:42 AM

Varsity

07-13-2005, 05:44 AM

I don't get it. The content that is currently in the game (cop-killing, drug-use, violence towards women) is a hell of a lot worse than a guy and his girl making love.
The issue is that it was hidden from the board, and that is breach of contract. I doubt the game's rating will change, but Rockstar are in it deep regardless.

Varsity: What do you mean? "a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes" and "hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code" sounds like a denial to me.
What are they denying though? Not that the content is there, just that you can access it without mods. That's irrelevant.

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 05:44 AM

At least our elected officials are doing their jobs in protecting us from the corruptive influence of 3D character models and animation routines.
Thank god.

I mean, I was a disturbed when little Johnny picked up a hooker and then shot her and took the money back, but to ever think that the game would allow animated breasts to be shown? Its just despicable. :rolleyes:

It reminds me of this time I was browsing DVDs at Target. These two moms were there shopping for DVDs for their sons. One of them picks up a title (something like The Matrix) and asks the other "How is this movie?" The other replies with something like "Well, I found it pretty violent, how old is *insert kid's name" again?" "Oh, he's 10. Well, is there any nudity?" "No, I don't think so."

"Oh good, I don't really care about violence as long as there is no nudity involved."

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 05:48 AM

Varsity: What do you mean? "a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes" and "hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code" sounds like a denial to me.
They aren't accused of allowing easy access to the scenes. They are accused of allowing the scenes to be present at all.

They aren't denying the scenes exist.

Rone

07-13-2005, 05:57 AM

Maybe it's just the way it appears in my mind, then. "Alter scenes" and "altering the game's source code" become "those naughty hackers created the sex scenes" for me.

MosBen

07-13-2005, 06:00 AM

Just to be clear, the ESRB isn't elected, though I think there is some kind of investigation going on with the Australian government.

The issue here isn't that the sex in the game is objectionable, it's that the ratings system is based on the existence in a game of certain content, and the M rating is not given to games with graphic depictions of sex. Rockstar wanted an M rating, didn't tell the ESRB about the scene despite the full disclosure requirement, and they got their M rating. Now the board is having hearings about whether they should change the rating to reflect this new evidence.

I'm more than willing to agree that the weighting of the ratings in favor of violence over sex is silling and prudish, but that's not really what's at issue here.

TacRod

07-13-2005, 06:11 AM

The use of the term "hackers" to describe modders seems designed to strike fear into the non-gamer heart. "We are the victims here. Our game was attacked by HACKERS!"

I personally find the most offensive thing about GTA to be the shitty mission design. I wish someone would mod in an "I've failed this boring, shitty mission 10 times already, please let me skip it" option.

ackbrack

07-13-2005, 06:12 AM

So, if Rockstar can be held accountable for the way their game is played after someone modifies the code, should Epic, for example, be held responsible for allowing UT2004 to be stolen, and thus promoting the deterioration of our childrens' morality, after someone modifies the code so that one doesn't need an original CD to play?

thFOOL

07-13-2005, 06:21 AM

Voodoo

07-13-2005, 06:24 AM

I go to the local flea market, where they are selling AK-47s with the auto-fire disabled. After modding the gun to make it auto-fire again, who is responsible?

In my car, there is a governer that does not allow it to reach a speed which is considered unsafe in that vehical. I disable it, and allow my car to go now to dangerous speeds which were initially limited by the governer. Who is responsible?

Most likely, the person who made this mod didn't even purchase the game. Does this violate EULA? This case is complex and will define the relationship of the modding community to every game in the future.

Varsity

07-13-2005, 06:28 AM

It isn't complex, it is a simple case of deception and not honouring a contract. None of the analogies in this thread have any bearing on what's actually going on.

MrMeatshake

07-13-2005, 06:45 AM

"Oh good, I don't really care about violence as long as there is no nudity involved."

heheh, i love this logic. what's the bit in the south park film? show the kids as much guns and violence as you like, but don't let them hear a swear-word, because that might 'turn them bad'!

from here (http://www.mediacircus.net/southpark.html): "In this case, the film speaks to issues of tolerance and censorship [...] the MPAA's credo that 'as long as there is no swearing, violence is okay'."

this is utterly, utterly stupid and (IMHO) actually harmful. by doing things this way around, you're stopping your kids from seeing nearly all the cultured, serious films ever made, and forcing them to watch steven seagull mass-produced tripe in it's stead. not the best way to create well-rounded individuals.

on that note, war of the worlds is a 12A - does anyone else think that the amount of alluded to and actual violence and scary content should have made this film at the VERY LEAST a 15, or am i just a prude?

jeffool

07-13-2005, 06:49 AM

My assumption is that the content was there, and that 'Hot Coffee' is likely just a small change (flip a few bits) that allows it to work. That said, I don't think Rockstar did anything wrong.

Developers constantly leave junk data on discs. I mean, even console games have been taken apart (Halo, Fable) and had their 'game code' changed. Check out Halomods.com or Fablemod.com.

When you think about it, it's obvious that this was going to happen eventually. A developer would leave loose info on a disk that could come back to haunt them. Rockstar just didn't think it was going to happen to them. Hackers have been screwing around games forever. That's where a lot of us people who program get started, the desire to take existing programs apart and tinker with them. (And cheat on games...)

ackbrack

07-13-2005, 06:50 AM

It isn't complex, it is a simple case of deception and not honouring a contract. None of the analogies in this thread have any bearing on what's actually going on.

I think this is incorrect. These scenes, according to Rockstar were not indended to be accessible by the player in the game. It's the game, as programmed to run by the developers, that gets rated, and the rating is based on how the content is used in the game (http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp#5). Will you ever encounter this content when playing the game as it was released? No. Sure, the developers screwed up by not deleting this content from the code of the game completely, but if the game that they wanted you to play did not access this content, why should they be rated on it?

Varsity

07-13-2005, 06:56 AM

The ESRB's contract demands full disclosure. Rockstar did not give full disclosure. Rockstar are in breach of contract.

Dracula-X

07-13-2005, 06:57 AM

I think I hear more cash registers ringing...

Lodin

07-13-2005, 07:09 AM

Ha ha ha ha, they are so full of shit. The mod was out just a few days after the games release. There's no way anyone could slap something like that together in such a short time.
Grow some balls Rockstar and fess up.

automaton

07-13-2005, 07:13 AM

The funny thing here is that I own GTA: San Andreas. I've never seen the sex scenes described while playing the game. I have no idea how to go about unlocking the sex scenes even if I wanted to.

I have seen the scenes though. I saw them watching the news on TV yesterday.

jeffool

07-13-2005, 07:22 AM

Sure, the developers screwed up by not deleting this content from the code of the game completely, but if the game that they wanted you to play did not access this content, why should they be rated on it?

Exactly the point. If a film company hid porn on a DVD, but no way in the menu system to access it, and it was discovered when pirates started ripping the DVD to spread over the internet, this would be a two day story at best. Not an 'issue'.

Now, whether or not the leak of the sexual content was on purpose or not, that should be investigated. If someone on the team did release this on purpose, then punish the person. To decry games completely because of this is insane. Of course, it's also going to happen.

AbeLincoln

07-13-2005, 07:23 AM

I'm with varsity on this. I would guess that the point of the full disclosure is too keep the system credible and out of sexy news scandals. Rockstar didn't disclose and what has happened, people are questioning the rating system and there's a sexy news scandal. So if indeed they did include this content even if it's locked down they violated the contract and should be in trouble for this mess.

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 07:46 AM

I think I hear more cash registers ringing...
Haha, yeah, thats exactly what I posted when I first heard this story on EA.

Rockstar managed to get MSM to advertise that GTA:SA contains porn, lol.

ÜberJumper

07-13-2005, 07:47 AM

I'll wager that this was an easter egg put in by one of the programmers, and he himself leaked the information about how to access it.

There's some pretty funny easter egg contents in Homeworld 2 that still haven't gotten out publically.

netcraazzy

07-13-2005, 07:54 AM

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the nudity patch for the sims, that seems to be a similar example to this and nobody seemed to care when that came out.

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 08:00 AM

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the nudity patch for the sims, that seems to be a similar example to this and nobody seemed to care when that came out.
You have to look at it through the eyes of politicians and MSM. GTA is a much juicier target than The Sims.

kid cabelgo

07-13-2005, 08:10 AM

TrackZero

07-13-2005, 08:15 AM

"So far we have learned that the "hot coffee" modification is the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game," reads the statement. "In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code. Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code, we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered by the 'hot coffee' modification."

Gee, so it's exactly as I predicted earlier. You can take ANY game content and modify it to be AO content. To use my earlier example, take an model of Mario thrusting, take a model of Princess Peach bending over, and there you have it. It's certainly not deserving of a change of it's ESRB rating over that.

netcraazzy

07-13-2005, 08:16 AM

You have to look at it through the eyes of politicians and MSM. GTA is a much juicier target than The Sims.

That's my point exactly, this is getting blown way out of proportion.

ReaverX

07-13-2005, 08:19 AM

Goronmon

07-13-2005, 08:20 AM

That's my point exactly, this is getting blown way out of proportion.
The saddest part is that the general public doesn't agree with you on that point.

Dirty Harry

07-13-2005, 08:45 AM

I'm sure all of you that are wrong would be suprised to find out that you are wrong, but i will leave that up to you to work out.

Frogleg Special

07-13-2005, 08:46 AM

Rockstar, since most underaged kids buy console versions anyway, put R Rated stamp on the PC version and please enable raunchy mode from the get go next time.

Nerv

07-13-2005, 09:21 AM

I'm more concerned that this could lead to publishers coming down hard on the modding scene in general, stopping devs from releasing SDKs, and leaning on modding websites and the like.

buckfutter

07-13-2005, 09:51 AM

I can't wait until there's a scandal about a book where if you read every 40th letter there's a story about an incestuous family of terrorists torturing a cop to death. Time to give the bible a good glance over...

eatme

07-13-2005, 09:58 AM

Gee, so it's exactly as I predicted earlier.

It's not-- Rockstar was lying. Or, as it's called in circles where lying is SOP and generally okay, "slightly exaggerating" or "spinning". Their statement is false.

Gpig

07-13-2005, 10:04 AM

(profanity ahead!)

Varsity, I'll repeat this a lot in this post but I'd like to start out with it, you're a fucking idiot.

Hey guys, check it out, I'm THE FUCKING FACT MAN!

What is the criteria for rating the games?

In rating a game, ESRB considers many content areas, including but not limited to violence, sex, language, and substance abuse. ESRB raters also take into consideration how such content elements are depicted and used in the context of the game to help them determine an appropriate age recommendation and which content descriptors to apply.

I was going to bold the second sentence even though it's only two sentences because I'm not sure if you would just start reading it and then give up, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt despite you having proven earlier that you don't deserve it. I'm a nice guy.

This is no different than the sims nudity patch. When you play the sims the blur blocking the sims won't just "go away". It has to be modified in order to do that and hey, did you notice that nudity would get a game an M rating? It's almost like ESRB doesn't rate on what a fucking hackjob can do but rather on what's in nonmodded gameplay. Isn't that just odd? I'm afraid that ESRB isn't a fucking machine, incapable of thinking logically like you seem to be. They know the difference between shit they left in but wasn't accessible and seems to only be in the code because they originally were going to use it but cut it out like so many other features. Why would ESRB rate a game based on what was going to be in it, but was later decided to not be put in the final version? Rockstar didn't want that to be in the game, so they removed access to it.

It appears I'm not the only person who is following this train of thought either:

"We thoroughly support the work of the esrb, and believe that it has an exemplary record of rating games and promoting understanding of video game content. We also feel confident that the investigation will uphold the original rating of the game, as the work of the mod community is beyond the scope of either publishers or the ESRB."

Man, all of this shit and I don't even fucking like GTA. I just hate people who don't think out situations. They remind of the faggots that believe in conspiracy theories based on one discrepancy rather than deciding based on a series of facts and logical thinking.

eatme

07-13-2005, 10:36 AM

They remind of the faggots that believe in conspiracy theories....

After recycling the same tired bullshit from the past several pages, you then decided to make yourself look like a complete asshole. Bravo!

netcraazzy

07-13-2005, 10:53 AM

I just hate people who don't think out situations.

I just hate people who single somebody out and call them an idiot for having a decent opionon, rehash all the previously posted comments and then call themselves a genius.

They remind of the faggots that believe in conspiracy theories based on one discrepancy rather than deciding based on a series of facts and logical thinking.

Name calling for teh Win!

Dirty Harry

07-13-2005, 10:56 AM

After recycling the same tired bullshit from the past several pages, you then decided to make yourself look like a complete asshole. Bravo!
I dont think he looks like an asshole, its more the people saying that rockstar pulled the wool over the ESRB. They submitted what the gamer was going to experience. A mod is not the same game and the technical know how to use this mod on a console is alot harder than on a pc.

Gpig

07-13-2005, 11:31 AM

After recycling the same tired bullshit from the past several pages, you then decided to make yourself look like a complete asshole. Bravo!
I pointed out how conspiracy theorists hang on to one small point rather than going with the obvious and how I said it reminded me of it and that's what pisses me off about his inability to think this thing through. He keeps stating that it's "full disclosure" when it already was "full disclosure" of what is in the game. They aren't responsible for future updates. edit: I meant to say future updates "to the software by the community" to avoid any confusion

I just hate people who single somebody out and call them an idiot for having a decent opionon, rehash all the previously posted comments and then call themselves a genius.

If you noticed, he posted the same thing multiple times and was proven wrong multiple times. I can't stand stupidity so I took the points that he seems to have glossed over and reposted them specifically for him. If I hadn't called him a fucking idiot he wouldn't end up picking my post apart, realizing that the points are valid, then debating semantics to "win" while realizing that his point has merit but is fucking terrible.

Nameback

07-13-2005, 12:05 PM

All I see this as is Rockstar covering their own ass, I highly doubt this is the actual people that work at R*'s opion. Its just what their lawyers told them to do to cover their own ass.

MosBen

07-13-2005, 12:37 PM

There's a difference between what *can* be done with the game, and what *ships* on the game. It's perfectly possible that EA disclosed the fact that the Sim models were nude (though rather crudely modelled) underneath the blur. What the ESRB is saying is that Rockstar put something on a disc and into the hands of consumers without telling them about it. This is what Varsity means by full disclosure. It's not the same as modding a game to make the thrusting mario character be right next to a bent over Peach, or at least that's not what the ESRB is alleging. They're saying that this already existed in the game and was simply turned off. Maybe this would have effected the score, maybe not, the key is that Rockstar didn't tell them about it.

Personally I think the M rating will stay, but there's nothing wrong with an investigation into whether or not Rockstar disclosed everything they should, and if not, if this material will effect the rating.

And boy, resorting to the tough guy routine on the internet? Super convincing. I mean, when you compared him to "teh faggots", wow, I was all like, "Dizamn, he got some points fo sho!"

Edit: And I'd just like to point out that I haven't seen the ESRB contract that developers sign, nor do I think have many of us. If someone wants to post, with a link or some kind of proof, the parts of the contract relating to the level of disclosure required when submitting a game that would probably be very helpful to this discussion.

The bottom line is this will be sorted out legally, though perhaps not necessarily in a courtroom per se. People found out about the existence of the content, the ESRB said they hadn't seen this content when they rated the game, and now they're going to have an investigation into whether it properly should have been submitted or whether it's beneath the radar of their organization. If they rule that it should have been submitted, then they'll have an investigation as to whether or not it would have effected the score, which, if it was supposed to be submitted, it probably would have.

And the defense of the ad hominim attacks is some of the most perverse logic I've seen in a long time.

Kelegacy

07-13-2005, 04:25 PM

This is just sad.
Can someone make this sex game in Half life 2 with Gord and that Sassy lass Alyx please, those are some nice character models at least. =)

Haha. The GTA models werent nice enough to really give me a pudger if I saw the Hot Coffee mod in action. But Gordon yanking on Alyx's hair, all sweaty and stinking like sex while Dog watches?

Cha-ching!

Nameback

07-13-2005, 05:18 PM

Actually I'm not sure if there even is a Gordon Freeman model in HL2, think about it. Do you ever see yourself?

Thenetcase

07-13-2005, 05:47 PM

Wait a minute.. How can a mod THAT SMALL include new models and redesign a whole segment of a computer game's code??? Don't you think it'd be a LITTLE BIGGER?!?!

TrackZero

07-13-2005, 06:20 PM

Haha. The GTA models werent nice enough to really give me a pudger if I saw the Hot Coffee mod in action. But Gordon yanking on Alyx's hair, all sweaty and stinking like sex while Dog watches?

Cha-ching!

LMFAO, ROFL. Jesus man, you need to give warnings before you drop comedic bombs like that.

DarkPhenomenon

07-13-2005, 07:40 PM

In order to argue weather Rockstar has to disclose ALL the content on the game or just the accessible content relies soley on what contract states. I haven't seen a link or even a copy/paste of what is legally suppose to be submitted to the ESRB. Until someone provides that you guys really have no basis to this debate and your posts are really more about your oppinion or your comprehension on the rumors you've heard about ESRB rating legalities (Legal documents that I guarantee none of you actually have access to).

My oppinion of the matter is that it's retarded that Rockstar is being put in hot water over something that was NEVER accessable on any retail version of the game. Quite obsurd actually. It's stupid that anyone is even considering changing the rating on a game based on content that is NOT accessable without the use of a mod. I also think it's stupid that people find sexual content so much more disturbing than the obscene amount of violence in the game.

G-Man

07-13-2005, 07:41 PM

Nothing like going to work and hearing your supervisor saying and I quote:

"You guys hear about that new game umm.. what's it called? it's all violent... you shoot cops.." Grand theft Auto? "Yeah! that's it. They have some part on there that let's you beat and rape women now! Can you believe that? It's disgusting! And you know what the sad part is? These kids play these games where they shoot cops and things and then 10 minutes later they go out and do it."

I tried to explain the real story but it was a lost cause before I even began...

You know, my boss said, like, almost EXACTLY THE SAME THING! Know what though? I just shut up and nodded my head, cause that's what kind of corporate tool I am. Gotta make that paper so I can go out and buy these "ultra-violent, cop killing" games, right?

Cuba

07-13-2005, 10:19 PM

The use of the term "hackers" to describe modders seems designed to strike fear into the non-gamer heart. "We are the victims here. Our game was attacked by HACKERS!"Well, it IS the correct term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker

I have bolded the most important phrase in the ESRB FAQ:ESRB raters also take into consideration how such content elements are depicted and used in the context of the game to help them determine an appropriate age recommendation and which content descriptors to apply.CONTEXT. If a highly skilled gamer that explores every single area of the map can NEVER find this animation without installing a mod then what hope does an average gamer have while playing normally?

Rockstar submitted the game that will be on sale on the shelves, that is all they are obligated to do, I believe the "must submit all content" line that is being quoted is to stop devs modifying the game after it has been rated. I see no wrongdoing on their part, they did exacly what the ESRB asked of them.

Eon

07-14-2005, 04:04 AM

Unlike a lot of you I HAVE run through Age Rating paperwork - albeit for the UK.

I have this sneaking suspicion that RockStar might fall foul of the requirement to make all content available to the assesors so that they could judge for themselves about it's context and use within the product. Usually that means the cutscenes are seperate or easily accessible and that cheats are provided so that the game can be played through. If Rockstar had left a cutscene of "Pimpslapping my bitch hoe before gettin' all up in her ass" on the CD that they'd decided not to actually use ingame, and someone found it and decoded it - they'd be in the cart, I suspect.

I think the asessor makes the call on whether the access to the content is sufficient to risk including it.

QueQueg

07-14-2005, 07:25 AM

Wait a minute.. How can a mod THAT SMALL include new models and redesign a whole segment of a computer game's code??? Don't you think it'd be a LITTLE BIGGER?!?!

Exactly correct.

This statement was made by Take2, the publisher, who has nothing to do with the actual engineering of the game. In other words, these are suits who are going to say whatever they can to cover thier ass/profits.

I love GTA:SA, its currently my favorite game. I couldn't care less if they change it to AO.

But all this crap about l33t haxors making hot coffee where there was none is just a load of horseshit.