Support NeoGAF

[Matlock]

Obviously, the thread is inspired by GTA:SA's current superstar status...but also by a post made by sonarrat that made me remember the Lambo unlock in GT3.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with this, the Lambo was removed from GT3 on US release due to licensing problems. However, through a gameshark code, it was found and used.

As far as I know, Lamborghini didn't file suit.

But here's the thing: should developers be held responsible for code that you cannot access without running unauthorized software?

 

[Mallrat83]

Obviously, the thread is inspired by GTA:SA's current superstar status...but also by a post made by sonarrat that made me remember the Lambo unlock in GT3.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with this, the Lambo was removed from GT3 on US release due to licensing problems. However, through a gameshark code, it was found and used.

As far as I know, Lamborghini didn't file suit.

But here's the thing: should developers be held responsible for code that you cannot access without running unauthorized software?

Yes.

 

[GitarooMan]

Simple answer: no, because they have no intent of anyone accessing that code and they personally offer no way of accessing it.

Complicated answer: yes, partially, because they have knowledge that their software can be used with other products to access hidden code. Similar to how Napster is liable because they know that their product can be used to download copyrighted works

 

[Matlock]

Napster is liable because they know that their product can be used to download copyrighted works

By that logic, Internet Explorer should be a reason for Microsoft to be held liable for piracy.



Re: Mallrat--Nice quoting an entire post and saying one word, dude.

 

[Wario64]

yes. if they weren't liable, what's stopping developers like rockstar from putting locked code that isn't suppose to be there that's unlockable by a code or gameshark, just so they can skirt around the ESRB ratings? or in Polyphony's case, going around a license that they don't have. if someone actually makes a mod that requires actual coding, modelling, etc., then the game makers shouldn't be liable. but if it's something like the hot coffee situation or the GT3 lambo., they should get blamed

 

[Mallrat83]

By that logic, Internet Explorer should be a reason for Microsoft to be held liable for piracy.



Re: Mallrat--Nice quoting an entire post and saying one word, dude.

Sorry Matlock. Wasn't even paying attention to when I typed yes. I thought I had clicked on reply, not quote.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Yes they should. If you sell me a product containing objectionable material, even if I have to jump through hoops to access it, you should be liable.

The fact I need a mod or a gameshark code to access this data does not get you off the hook, it is still accessible. Game creators have a responsibility to engage in due diligence with regards to code security, and if they do not engage in due diligence, they get what they deserve.

 

[Pimpbaa]

No I don't think they should be liable. As long as the content isn't accessible through normal means. The whole San Andreas controversy makes me wanna go beat up a hooker with a baseball bat.

 

[GitarooMan]

By that logic, Internet Explorer should be a reason for Microsoft to be held liable for piracy.

Not exactly because Napster was being substantially used for pirating while you can't argue that IE is substantially used for pirating. But, your point is valid because I don't think anyone could argue that Rockstar, Sony, etc., software is used substantially for the purpose of accessing the hidden code.

IMO, they shouldn't be liable because the ramifications are too broad and it would require companies to waste too much time cleaning their code

 

[Yusaku]

This is obviously going to be a collossal pain for game developers. Simply disabling content that wont be used in the final copy is common, simply because it's easier. Now developers are going to have to spend time at the end of the development cycle making sure everything that isn't used in the game is psyically removed from the game media.

 

[fse]

Nope, they shouldn't be held liable. They had no intention in using it,

 

[RuGalz]

Hell no. That said, developer still should remove controversial content such as GTA case if there's time to do so.

 

[Dylx]

I think they should be held resonsible for the code

Why? because they could just stop being lazy and just delete it from the code the lambo in gt3 would not mess the game up; removing sex from gta would not render the game unplayable would it??

i wonder if there is hidden code in halo of MC and cortana having sex???

 

[sangreal]

It depends. If GTA were to ship with real-world replacement models for all the cars on the DVD then yes, they should be held liable. I don't think games should be rated based on content inaccessible through normal means, however.

 

[Dylx]

It depends. If GTA were to ship with real-world replacement models for all the cars on the DVD then yes, they should be held liable. I don't think games should be rated based on content inaccessible through normal means, however.

Then why put it in the game code if you dont want anyone playing it? thats just a waste of programming and ect..... Rockstar knew what they were doing

 

[GitarooMan]

Then why put it in the game code if you dont want anyone playing it? thats just a waste of programming and ect..... Rockstar knew what they were doing

Because maybe they originally wanted it to be part of the game and then decided to remove it. Games go through tons of changes during development. To expect the code to be constantly revised to remove unused parts seems a bit overwhelming, IMO

 

[Syckx]

This shouldn't even be a contested issue. They are liable for whatever data is on their disk whether it was intended to be accessed by the end user, or not. Had it been disabled properly they wouldn't be having this issue right now and the fact it was hidden or "deactivated" shows that Rockstar knew what was on the disk when they submitted their materials to the ESRB and they didn't report it. I know it's not as easy as hitting the delete button, but that's a moot point. The content was there, it was produced by Rockstar, it is now easily accessable by any end-user and it oversteps the rating system they agreed to.

 

[RuGalz]

Because maybe they originally wanted it to be part of the game and then decided to remove it. Games go through tons of changes during development. To expect the code to be constantly revised to remove unused parts seems a bit overwhelming, IMO

I think people expect all exectives to check every single line of code, every single texture, every single animation, every single sound clip in the game before shipping a game.

 

[Madame M]

No they should not and this hot coffee shit is stupid and whoever found it should be shot for caring enough about GTA:SA enough to find it.

 

[Mashing]

Not always, but I do expect the developer/publisher to be truthful about the matter when it's exposed.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Now programmers have a sneaky way at getting back at their bosses..accidentally put something in and screw the company over.

I don't think Rockstar should be liable, but I don't really care either way.

 

[tetsuoxb]

I think people expect all exectives to check every single line of code, every single texture, every single animation, every single sound clip in the game before shipping a game.

No. But they are supposed to.... it is called the concept of due diligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence

Game makers have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of ESRB ratings by excercising due diligence in properly representing their games to the board. If you have hidden code, and have not taken care to make it 100% unaccessible, then you are negligent in your responsibilities. If rockstar had made their code more secure, had the common sense to not program a sex scene into a hot button game, or spent the time rewriting/deleting the offending code, they would not be in this mess. That is 100% fact.

However, marketing probably dictated when the game had to ship, and a concious decision was made to modify the code rather than remove it. It is as the old adage says - If you play with fire, you may get burned.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Obviously, the thread is inspired by GTA:SA's current superstar status...but also by a post made by sonarrat that made me remember the Lambo unlock in GT3.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with this, the Lambo was removed from GT3 on US release due to licensing problems. However, through a gameshark code, it was found and used.

As far as I know, Lamborghini didn't file suit.

But here's the thing: should developers be held responsible for code that you cannot access without running unauthorized software?

Yes. Even if it's hidden, the devs still put it there.

I know this is kind of a ridiculous analogy, but it's like you hiding a stash of marijuana in a wall, and then your uncle, who happens to be a cop, brings over his police dog on an offduty casual family visit, and the dog finds the marijuana. Are you still responsible for the marijuana even if it wasn't meant to be discovered?

My point is, just because something is hidden doesn't mean it doesn't count.

 

[teiresias]

This is like saying cable companies should be liable for sending out explicit material to people that don't want it because people that don't want to see it could go out and get a descrambler and gain access to the porn channels the cable companies normally block unless you request them.

 

[akascream]

They are responsible for everything on the disk. Why hide it in the first place?


But a better question would be, should game makers be responsible to the ESRB when they misrepresent a game disk's content? The answer is a resounding yes, as Rockstar is painfully learning right now.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is like saying cable companies should be liable for sending out explicit material to people that don't want it because people that don't want to see it could go out and get a descrambler and gain access to the porn channels the cable companies normally block unless you request them.

Not really. Descramblers are illegal in the first place, and I don't think these people were looking through the game's hidden content and then went "OH NO! SEX!"

Besides, TV stations aren't stored inside of your box. It's different when you have a physical copy of the data.

 

[RuGalz]

No. But they are supposed to.... it is called the concept of due diligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence

Game makers have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of ESRB ratings by excercising due diligence in properly representing their games to the board. If you have hidden code, and have not taken care to make it 100% unaccessible, then you are negligent in your responsibilities. If rockstar had made their code more secure, had the common sense to not program a sex scene into a hot button game, or spent the time rewriting/deleting the offending code, they would not be in this mess. That is 100% fact.

However, marketing probably dictated when the game had to ship, and a concious decision was made to modify the code rather than remove it. It is as the old adage says - If you play with fire, you may get burned.

Yea in an ideal world, which no one lives in. Wall street pressure means everything in this world. Ship on time means more than anything.

The fact that it's easily reactivated means it was most likely removed very late in the development cycle. At that stage, removing everything isn't always possible. I have been in that situation before and I know what it's like. You remove something which changes load time for some other things and introduce bugs that was never seen before.

Making code more secure? Give me a break. Tell that to college grads and rookie programmers. :lol

Who knows what the real deal is. We are all saying based on our assumptions of R*'s intention. If they had left the code in there hoping someone would discover it, then they are dumbass and irrisponsible developers. If not, I don't see the problem since the way the game was intent to be played contain no interactive sex scene.

 

[The Faceless Master]

yes. if they weren't liable, what's stopping developers like rockstar from putting locked code that isn't suppose to be there that's unlockable by a code or gameshark, just so they can skirt around the ESRB ratings? or in Polyphony's case, going around a license that they don't have. if someone actually makes a mod that requires actual coding, modelling, etc., then the game makers shouldn't be liable. but if it's something like the hot coffee situation or the GT3 lambo., they should get blamed

this is exactly what i wanted to say... i mean, devs could just run amok with unlicensed hidden content, and just wait for people to find it... and if it's a popular game, someone will eventually...

 

[Parallax Scroll]

If Rockstar did intend to include the scene in the game at one point, I wouldn't be surprised if the plan was to include black bars or pixelization to obscure part of the action. That would explain why they didn't bother making the characters anatomically correct.

What if the game had been published this way, then someone hacked it to remove the black bars?

 

[Uter]

Who is being held liable??? As the ESRB itself states "The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory body for the interactive entertainment software industry established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA)"....

 

[akascream]

If Rockstar did intend to include the scene in the game at one point, I wouldn't be surprised if the plan was to include black bars or pixelization to obscure part of the action. That would explain why they didn't bother making the characters anatomically correct.

What if the game had been published this way, then someone hacked it to remove the black bars?

What if Rockstar's grandmothers were collectively starving and the only thing that would save the day was a hidden sex mode in the next GTA? Come on dude. =P

 

[Tellaerin]

This is like saying cable companies should be liable for sending out explicit material to people that don't want it because people that don't want to see it could go out and get a descrambler and gain access to the porn channels the cable companies normally block unless you request them.

Quoted for truth.

The material in question was disabled before the game shipped. It is literally impossible to access in the course of normal play. Doing so requires deliberate alterations to the game code, which is something outside the scope of the game itself. IMO, no company should be held responsible for alterations the end-user makes to a program to change the game experience, whether by reenabling disabled code or altering/inserting content (aka modding). Saying they 'deliberately misrepresented' GTA:SA to the ESRB by not showing them material that was cut from the game and is inaccessible under normal circumstances is bullshit.

 

[Lathentar]

Yes, they should be liable. They knew very well that this content was in the game and didn't tell the ESRB about it.

If Nintendo has a secret area in pikmin where you could find items such as condoms, booze, syringes, porn, dildos... but left it hidden, there would be some major shit going on if someone found it. It shouldn't take long to remove content for a feature in a game that isn't even used.

 

[DarienA]

They are responsible for everything on the disk. Why hide it in the first place?

How much do you know about game coding aka? I'm guessing not alot, in very basic terms many games hell software in general can be found to have "broken" code that is left in the package because pulling it out could potentially "break" something else, or create a bug somewhere else... perhaps a function that references a part of the code, etc.. rather than create that potential headache most programmers will opt to "wall the code off" and move on.

That's why it's "hidden" because they are concerned what affect attempting to remove some code will have on the full packages stability.

And sometimes it's a question of time, someone will decide whether it's really worth the time and effort to pull out some unused code when it's just easier to again wall it off and move on.

If anything this is simply a wakeup call to developers/programmers, that folks on THIS side of the screen are getting much more savvy, and have much better tools to "root out" in the gaming code they put out. Going forward this will be kept in mind and the extra effort TO remove unused content will seem like more of a priority.

 

[Tain]

I do not think they should be liable for disabled code, exactly, for the reasons above. It can't be the most convenient thing in the world to remove.

Resources, on the other hand, absolutely. There is no reason as to why Rockstar couldn't have easily swapped out the resources for Hot Coffee with dummy animations and audio. Similarly, the GT3 disc should not have contained the Lambo without permission.

 

[Jonnyram]

I feel that the game maker should be liable. The cable company comparison just doesn't hold true... people know that all the data is transmitted - it's a limitation of the technology. You can't say that there is any such technical limitation with game software though.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes, they should be liable. They knew very well that this content was in the game and didn't tell the ESRB about it.

If Nintendo has a secret area in pikmin where you could find items such as condoms, booze, syringes, porn, dildos... but left it hidden, there would be some major shit going on if someone found it. It shouldn't take long to remove content for a feature in a game that isn't even used.

There's a difference here. A secret area as you have described is meant to be hidden but eventually found. The content in question here was never meant to be found or accessed and the game doesn't let you under a normal basis. You have to go outside of the scope of the normal game. You can't make the comparison that you just did because it's a poor analogy.

 

[xsarien]

Obviously, the thread is inspired by GTA:SA's current superstar status...but also by a post made by sonarrat that made me remember the Lambo unlock in GT3.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with this, the Lambo was removed from GT3 on US release due to licensing problems. However, through a gameshark code, it was found and used.

As far as I know, Lamborghini didn't file suit.

But here's the thing: should developers be held responsible for code that you cannot access without running unauthorized software?

Not necessarily liable, but they should at least disclose that it's there; possibly emphasize that the only way it could possibly be accessed is through a modification to the game itself, which Rockstar can't control.

I honestly believe that the ESRB is more upset that they weren't told about the scenes than the content. They're making a point.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Quoted for truth.

The material in question was disabled before the game shipped. It is literally impossible to access in the course of normal play. Doing so requires deliberate alterations to the game code, which is something outside the scope of the game itself. IMO, no company should be held responsible for alterations the end-user makes to a program to change the game experience, whether by reenabling disabled code or altering/inserting content (aka modding). Saying they 'deliberately misrepresented' GTA:SA to the ESRB by not showing them material that was cut from the game and is inaccessible under normal circumstances is bullshit.

ok, let's apply that to people cheating in Halo 2 on Xbox Live... Bungie/MS shouldn't be held liable for people doing things not intended!

 

[fart]

the only thing that's really clear is that software developers are liable for damages due to bugs.

modifications or operation in environments that break the EULA probably shouldn't be an issue, however, and it's ridiculous to expect that the developer should be able to control a customer deployment. if the customer chooses to break a piece of software, the developer should probably not be held responsible for any ill effect.

one situation that comes to mind are copy protection systems that gradually cripple themselves when they detect an unlicensed deployment. i believe these are legal, and developers are not liable if this clever plan goes horribly wrong.

 

[RuGalz]

ok, let's apply that to people cheating in Halo 2 on Xbox Live... Bungie/MS shouldn't be held liable for people doing things not intended!

They certainly are not liable for people cheating in Halo 2 but it is their best interest to fight it off in order to sell more copies of Halo 2.

 

[Red Scarlet]

The material in question was disabled before the game shipped. It is literally impossible to access in the course of normal play. Doing so requires deliberate alterations to the game code, which is something outside the scope of the game itself. IMO, no company should be held responsible for alterations the end-user makes to a program to change the game experience, whether by reenabling disabled code or altering/inserting content (aka modding). Saying they 'deliberately misrepresented' GTA:SA to the ESRB by not showing them material that was cut from the game and is inaccessible under normal circumstances is bullshit.

Nail, meet head.

 

[The Faceless Master]

the only thing that's really clear is that software developers are liable for damages due to bugs.

modifications or operation in environments that break the EULA probably shouldn't be an issue, however, and it's ridiculous to expect that the developer should be able to control a customer deployment. if the customer chooses to break a piece of software, the developer should probably not be held responsible for any ill effect.

one situation that comes to mind are copy protection systems that gradually cripple themselves when they detect an unlicensed deployment. i believe these are legal, and developers are not liable if this clever plan goes horribly wrong.

every EULA i've read says something along the lines of " we provide no warranty or guarantee of the workmanship of this application" or something silly like that, and some guy on this forum swears that EULA's are enforceable...

 

[fart]

you may be right. i have no idea if that's ever been tested, but i'm guessing you wouldn't see them completely escape from liability in court...

 

[UltraMarioMan]

No. This whole thing is going to lead to buggier games since companys will be afraid to leave any unused code in games.

 

[xsarien]

This is like saying cable companies should be liable for sending out explicit material to people that don't want it because people that don't want to see it could go out and get a descrambler and gain access to the porn channels the cable companies normally block unless you request them.

A much closer - and accurate - comparison would be the MPAA holding a studio/distributor liable for the director sneaking in a single frame that's a photo of the dirtiest, filthiest thing you can think of. Sure, no one's going to see it over the course of a movie, but someone scanning frame-by-frame will.

 

[Jonnyram]

Saying they 'deliberately misrepresented' GTA:SA to the ESRB by not showing them material that was cut from the game and is inaccessible under normal circumstances is bullshit.

If it had been "cut from the game", we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I don't program games but I am a programmer. There is nothing I can see in the Hot Coffee that would have broken other parts of the game if it had been removed. It is a scripted event, rather than core code. They should have removed it if they wanted to avoid this, but I have the feeling they enjoy this kind of publicity. An AO rating will probably give the game extra sales at this point in time.

 

[Porridge]

Would you guys have a different opinion if there was disabled code that allowed you to view blatantly racist material? I think the fact that we're mostly mature individuals is why no one here is really angry with Rockstar.

All it takes is a guy with tons of free time and it'll be found. People comb these games looking for everything. Rockstar left something pretty bold on their copies of one of the most popular games in history. This is worse than the MK blood code -- and that was easily accessible!

A game maker is responsible for whatever it puts on the disc it sells.

How could anyone say otherwise? Obviously this little sex thing in GTA is accessible, because... someone found the code. Now does this mean that some 7 year old is having sex in GTA now? Probably not.

But is this damaging to Rockstar and video gaming as a whole? Yup. now people think you can do this in the game, automatically. that you can boot up the thing and start the fun. does it feature force-feedback?

Rockstar deserves the heat it's getting

 

[DarienA]

If it had been "cut from the game", we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I don't program games but I am a programmer. There is nothing I can see in the Hot Coffee that would have broken other parts of the game if it had been removed. It is a scripted event, rather than core code. They should have removed it if they wanted to avoid this, but I have the feeling they enjoy this kind of publicity. An AO rating will probably give the game extra sales at this point in time.

By scripted event do you mean non-interactive? Because that's not the case it's a mini-game.

 

[Tellaerin]

ok, let's apply that to people cheating in Halo 2 on Xbox Live... Bungie/MS shouldn't be held liable for people doing things not intended!

In the case of Halo 2, Bungie and MS are accountable for providing a fair and level playing field online--that's supposedly a big advantage of Live, one of the things that makes it worthwhile to pay $50 a year for a glorified matchmaking service (or so I'm told).

Manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for the things consumers do with their products after purchasing them, period. If some guy hops in his car and runs over a bunch of people, where does the responsibility lie? Should the auto manufacturer be dragged into court because some maniac chose to use their product in a way they never intended?

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same story for software. If somebody buys a copy of GTA: SA and modifies it to change the game experience when they play, the responsibility for making those changes rests squarely on them, not the manufacturer. You might argue that the game can be too easily modified in such a fashion, but the fact remains that you still have to go out of your way to alter it in order to access the 'bad' content. Companies shouldn't be held accountable for consumers' actions in such cases.