-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Should Game Makers be liable for "hidden" and/or "disabled" code?
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
Xenon
Member
Yes. If they feel that any part of their game is inappropriate enough to be cut then the code should be removed. The fact that it can be access by any kid with a gameshark is the most damaging thing to Rockstar.
The GTA:SA programmers at best were just lazy bastards who didnt take the time to make the scenes unplayable by removing the code. Or... the programmers knew and left it thinking it wouldnt be that big of a deal because it would just be perceived as a hack like the nude patch for DOA volleyball.
Either way they fucked up and got busted for it. Its time for them to take their licks like men.
The GTA:SA programmers at best were just lazy bastards who didnt take the time to make the scenes unplayable by removing the code. Or... the programmers knew and left it thinking it wouldnt be that big of a deal because it would just be perceived as a hack like the nude patch for DOA volleyball.
Either way they fucked up and got busted for it. Its time for them to take their licks like men.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
I was reading the Halo2 update thingy at Bungie's site and it said something about the user effectively agrees by purchasing the product not to alter copyrited code. What's the legal position on this in regards to all games. What if all games where to come with a warning that the game and it's code are copyrites and cannot be tampered with without authorisation?
How were Rockstar meant to know that someone would be able to find content they cut? How can they be reliable for people who decide to hack their game to change the experience?
They may have created the content, but they disabled it and it was not a part of the game sold. In going to the measures required to run it, you are intentionally changing hte experience, and its your own responsibility, not Rockstars.
They may have created the content, but they disabled it and it was not a part of the game sold. In going to the measures required to run it, you are intentionally changing hte experience, and its your own responsibility, not Rockstars.
GaimeGuy said:
Two holes in this:
1) The virtual "porn" here isn't illegal. It's merely inappropriate.
2) To complete your analogy, it would require a hacker with super-sensitive smelling capabilities to know the code was in there and be unable to avoid stumbling across it. Instead, we're talking about people actively seeking out to find the stuff. It's not a casual family visit. Playing the game is a casual family visit. This is a raid.
Reilly said:
Not really. That is user created content that is objectionable. It is even more active intervention on the part of the user.
Here the user intervention is very limited. The mod/action replay codes are merely unlocking code that exists in the game itself. The nude patches are adding to the game.
A good analogy is a room with drugs in it. A nude patch would put the drugs in the game. The GTA situation is more like the drugs are already there and the mod just unlocks the door. You wouldnt be held liable, if, after investigation, the drugs were found to be planted. However, you would be liable if drugs were in the room and someone unlocked the door and called the cops. The fact you locked the door does very little to change the facts of what are inside.
The ESRB didnt go looking to nail rockstar, the problem came to them. This one is 100% rockstars fault. Everything going on is ultimately of their own doing for using a cheap lock on their drug filled room. Again, secure the code or pull it out entirely. Otherwise prepare to get screwed by modders, etc.
BTW: If I was a take two shareholder, I WOULD BE PISSED. Their carelessness, and lack of due diligence, just wiped out 160 million in revenue, 0.05 USD per share in profit, and countless millions of dollars in lost stock equity.
If this does not have shareholder lawsuit written on it (as opposed to majesco being completely rosy in sales projections) then nothing does. Public companies should know better than to gamble like rockstar did.
If this does not have shareholder lawsuit written on it (as opposed to majesco being completely rosy in sales projections) then nothing does. Public companies should know better than to gamble like rockstar did.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Absolutely. As others before me have pointed out, it's not so much a question in this case of intent, but I think it's important to set a standard for how you CAN'T get around restrictions that are there for a reason.
If they were not, a developer could easily develop some sort of mature content, disable it, then later say "oops we didn't mean that!" and get off free. It doesn't matter if it is only accessible through a modification, it is on the disk, so it is something that was created by the developer. If it is created by the developer, and shipped with the game, they should be held responsible for what is on the disk. End of story.
Let's use an extreme case to illustrate it. Suppoer the latest nickelodeon or sesame street game shipped and had a porn video hidden in it to fill up space. You could only access it with an illegal, but realitively easy modification. Should they be held liable? Granted this is a highly extreme case, but it illustrates the point rather effectively that if the disabled, but still included content is beyond the realm of what the game advertises, the developer needs to be held liable.
Others have pointed out that this creates large problems for developers because now they have to actually remove content and not just disable it. This isn't really true, as the problem is only limited to content that lies outside the bounds of the rating that the game receives. If the content that is disabled would not warrant a more strict rating than the actual game content that is readily accessible, then you are okay to simply disable it and let people find it as they may. It wouldn't be a big deal and has happened TONS of times before.
If they were not, a developer could easily develop some sort of mature content, disable it, then later say "oops we didn't mean that!" and get off free. It doesn't matter if it is only accessible through a modification, it is on the disk, so it is something that was created by the developer. If it is created by the developer, and shipped with the game, they should be held responsible for what is on the disk. End of story.
Let's use an extreme case to illustrate it. Suppoer the latest nickelodeon or sesame street game shipped and had a porn video hidden in it to fill up space. You could only access it with an illegal, but realitively easy modification. Should they be held liable? Granted this is a highly extreme case, but it illustrates the point rather effectively that if the disabled, but still included content is beyond the realm of what the game advertises, the developer needs to be held liable.
Others have pointed out that this creates large problems for developers because now they have to actually remove content and not just disable it. This isn't really true, as the problem is only limited to content that lies outside the bounds of the rating that the game receives. If the content that is disabled would not warrant a more strict rating than the actual game content that is readily accessible, then you are okay to simply disable it and let people find it as they may. It wouldn't be a big deal and has happened TONS of times before.
TTP said:
DOA2 wasn't popular enough to get this much attention therefore they are excused.
(despite the fact that the contet is on disc, requires modification to make it happen etc)It's interesting however that Tecmo sued the modder in Japan for violating copyright agreement and won the case.
RuGalz said:DOA2 wasn't popular enough to get this much attention therefore they are excused.
It's interesting however that Tecmo sued the modder in Japan for violating copyright agreement and won the case.
Whoa. The nude skins were not on the DOA disc. Different story entirely.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Yusaku said:
This is going to be an issue for developers period. All software developers have code that they leave in that they have no plans on a user accessing. It's not a simple fix to just pull code out without affecting other areas of code. If the code was commented out then that is obvious to anyone in the development community that the code is not for use.
The cost involved involved in that is going to be tremendous. It doesn't make good financial sense nor does it make good development sense.
The share holders would have been pissed if R* came to them and said we won't be able to release this until Feb or March 05 because we have to remove all theis excess code and re-test the game. Anyone in development knows that test gets the short shift in product release. Whenever budget needs to be cut it comes from test. So to save that money they just disable the code as opposed to removing it and retesting it.
Now the R* should have owned up to it and said yes we put the code in the game but it was never to be acessed. On top of that America need to fess up and be real with itself GTAIII + have all been AO realistacally.
In the case of GTA:SA They have code that's accessible only through an unlicensed peripheral. I don't see how they can be held responsible. Rockstar nor Sony/MS intended for that to be accessible by the player through normal means. It's like MS being held liable for piracy because Xbox can be modded to download and run SNES games.
Dr Zhivago
Member
I think the most likely result of all this will be that future GTAs will be much harder to mod.
Also, IGN are now reporting R* are withdrawing GTASA & replacing it with a coffee-free version.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/635/635198p1.html
Also, IGN are now reporting R* are withdrawing GTASA & replacing it with a coffee-free version.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/635/635198p1.html
GitarooMan
Member
Uter said:
This is a good point. R* I guess is liable for misrepresenting itself to the ESRB about the content. I've already said I disagree with this, for the various reasons already stated.
I guess the Lambo in GT4 is more interesting. What if Lambo sued Sony for hiding the car in hidden code that could be accessed by AR or Gameshark? I don't think this would ever happen, though, as it would be next to impossible to prove Sony's intent to defraud or publically use Lambo's trademark/copyright. Sony did not advertise or promote the hidden code.
Why? R* never meant for this content to be seen at release. As it has already been stated, It is just more cost effective to leave it on thie disc than to cut and retest the code. All developers do this, you would know this if you take a look at any retail game code. I dont see why thats hard for any of you to understand. If I where R* I wouls sue the shit out of that snot nose kid.jarrod said:
That's a slippery standard to hold though and some are speculating this move might've been intentional even. Bottom line, it was Rockstar's content on Rockstar's disc. "Intended use" shouldn't be held up as some sort of failsafe to excuse potentially questionable content they sold to consumers. They should've removed the content entirely if they never intended it to be seen. Simple.LuCkymoON said:
GitarooMan
Member
jarrod said:
So you're saying that developers should be held to a negligence standard (i.e., even if they didn't actively intend for people to access it, the fact that they absent-mindedly left it in is enough.) That's arguably OK (I don't personally agree), but what should the crime or punishment be? It definitely has to be less than if you can prove that they intended for it to be accessed (which would be incredibly difficult unless you could find some documentation or testimony discussing the fact that they wanted it found.)
No they shouldn't, anyone's who's seen those book text/code/data analysis programs(examples bible codes, similar can be found in moby dick, etc, etc in a sufficiently large work you may even find source codes, etc.) knows this. If you analyze the information that composes a book for example, you'll get all sort of non-sense and sensical information. Sentences, paragraphs, etc. From seeming prophecies, to smut, to all sort of sh!t.
Same most likely applies to a game's code, specially as it grows bigger. Depending on how you analyze the code you can find all sort of things. The same happens when you look at clouds, etc, out of nonsense/randomness/meaninglessness sense/order/meaning can arise. While the likelyhood is low there is no limit to what can be found as game sizes increase.
And what of naturally unintended ingame content? Suppose an accurate physics sym is made and either the cloud, water, some debris, etc turns out into some so-called indecent shape/smut, etc. What if the sym physics sometimes cause the char.s to fall down in suggestive posses(happens in real-life, good sims would make this so too.) Should they be liable? NO.
YOU cannot be held liable for the properties of reality, you cannot be held liable for the fact any piece of information depending on how you analyze/interpret it can have different meanings, and such a thing is unavoidable, fundamental property of information. I feel sorry for overzealous conservatives, they cannot fight logic itself and win. The law of man crumbles before the higher laws.
Same most likely applies to a game's code, specially as it grows bigger. Depending on how you analyze the code you can find all sort of things. The same happens when you look at clouds, etc, out of nonsense/randomness/meaninglessness sense/order/meaning can arise. While the likelyhood is low there is no limit to what can be found as game sizes increase.
And what of naturally unintended ingame content? Suppose an accurate physics sym is made and either the cloud, water, some debris, etc turns out into some so-called indecent shape/smut, etc. What if the sym physics sometimes cause the char.s to fall down in suggestive posses(happens in real-life, good sims would make this so too.) Should they be liable? NO.
YOU cannot be held liable for the properties of reality, you cannot be held liable for the fact any piece of information depending on how you analyze/interpret it can have different meanings, and such a thing is unavoidable, fundamental property of information. I feel sorry for overzealous conservatives, they cannot fight logic itself and win. The law of man crumbles before the higher laws.
aparisi2274
Member
Yes I think they should be held accountable.
Knowing the videogame market, they need to be aware of certain devices (ie. Gameshark, Action Replay) that would "enable" those codes or help find that code, and open up these sexually graphic scenes to anyone who has a cheat device. If you have the PC version, and you are a decent programmer or hacker, you can access that code and write a patch for it.
I dont mind if these developers leave in hidden or disabled code for lets say, test levels, or character design, but when its of a sexual nature, and they know that kids are going to be playing it, then I think it needs to come out all together....
So Yes, I do think they are liable for that stuff...
Knowing the videogame market, they need to be aware of certain devices (ie. Gameshark, Action Replay) that would "enable" those codes or help find that code, and open up these sexually graphic scenes to anyone who has a cheat device. If you have the PC version, and you are a decent programmer or hacker, you can access that code and write a patch for it.
I dont mind if these developers leave in hidden or disabled code for lets say, test levels, or character design, but when its of a sexual nature, and they know that kids are going to be playing it, then I think it needs to come out all together....
So Yes, I do think they are liable for that stuff...
jarrod said:
You mean GTA doesn't sell enough? People feel that Rockstar planted this to boost sales?
That's some logic for ya.
aparisi2274 said:
And there's the problem... kids aren't suppose to be playing it... it was rated M for a reason...
Apharmd Battler
Member
I just have one silly question. Why did Rockstar even bother to program something so juvenile? It's not like this was a graphics test or a debug mode. It's silly when you think about it, and if they had no intentions on using it why was the code left in retail disc? I mean this code is in the PS2, XBox AND PC versions of the game (I heard that the PS2 version can be accessed via Action Replay or something, and I know there's a modded for modded XBoxes). The conspiracy theorist in me says they knew damn well eventually someone would find it and this controversy would lead to more sales, but that just doesn't seem logical. It seems downright stupid with all the heat the franchise in general has been getting.
The other thing it tells me is that these developers are just lazy bastards to just port the code to different platforms. If that's all it took why so long for the PC and XBox versions? I already know I'm just trying to put my thumb on their intentions. Like someone said earlier whether right or wrong, legal or illegal, responsible or irresponsible, Rockstar should step up to the plate and take their lumps like adults. I know that it wasn't supposed to be accessable, but somebody found it. Didn't they think someone would take a look at the code, considering the popularity or previous GTA mods?! After all they cannot deny that their cooky minds created the content in the first place. I know that it wasn't supposed to be accessable, but somebody found it. Didn't they think someone would take a look at the code, considering the popularity or previous GTA mods?!
If your wife finds yor porn collection, be a man and claim it. Don't say I don't know where those movies and magazines came from. I kid, I kid.
NOTE: I'm being quasi-faceious........and extremely sarcastic
The other thing it tells me is that these developers are just lazy bastards to just port the code to different platforms. If that's all it took why so long for the PC and XBox versions? I already know I'm just trying to put my thumb on their intentions. Like someone said earlier whether right or wrong, legal or illegal, responsible or irresponsible, Rockstar should step up to the plate and take their lumps like adults. I know that it wasn't supposed to be accessable, but somebody found it. Didn't they think someone would take a look at the code, considering the popularity or previous GTA mods?! After all they cannot deny that their cooky minds created the content in the first place. I know that it wasn't supposed to be accessable, but somebody found it. Didn't they think someone would take a look at the code, considering the popularity or previous GTA mods?!
If your wife finds yor porn collection, be a man and claim it. Don't say I don't know where those movies and magazines came from. I kid, I kid.
NOTE: I'm being quasi-faceious........and extremely sarcastic
Xenon said:
<sigh> Serious deja vu here... before this the ESRB never required disclosure of unused resources before, they simply want to see the breadth and width of what the gamer at home who pops the game in their system will play.
I do agree with other folks though, it was stupid to leave the code there, maybe they were lazy, maybe they ran out of time, or maybe they just didn't think it would be a big deal(or found).
KingOfF00LS
Member
Is Ginsu liable if I take a steak knife and stab someone in the head?
The user should be held liable for breaking the EULA and manipulating the software outside the scope it was intended to be used for.
The user should be held liable for breaking the EULA and manipulating the software outside the scope it was intended to be used for.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
RuGalz said:
There is a crucial difference though. That is something that, from a codeing point of view, was never meant to happen.
It's inarguable that rockstar coded and developed the hot coffee monigame. They put it onto the disc, in it's entirity, and it just need some tricks to "unlock". This is not the same thing.
Rockstar developed the hot coffee minigame. Whether or not they 'intended' for it to be released, they SHOULD be help liable. That's all there is to it. If they aren't, then any developer can skirt around the ESRB by simply saying "oops, that wasn't supposed to be there". It's a sleazy way to get free publicity.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Not in my opinion. Someone had to 'break into' the game to access what wasn't meant to be accessed. However, something like the sex-minigame in GTA:SA should really have been removed and, after the current ratings scandal, I'm sure that every developer will be far more careful in the future about such unused elements in the final product.
Xenon
Member
Thanks to Rockstar now they will. WTF were they thinking when they made it in the first place. That was stupid to begin with. But leaving the mini game intact on the disc was just moronic.
I was listening to talk radio this morning and the host was calling on law enforcement to indict R* for providing porn to minors. I was thinking WTF it has an M rating! Then he quoted the total # of copies sold across all systems as the PC version, again WTF. The general public doesn't care how its accessed. They just know that it can be accessed easily and don't care to split hairs with computer programmers over the difference between playable and non playable content on a disc. The misinformation on this event is going to more damage to the industry than the actual facts. All this could have been avoided if they just took the damn thing off the disc.
as I said before, R* fucked up. Now they have to deal with it.
Xenon said:
But you also have to change the code to see the Hot Coffee scene, either by downloading a patch or using a GameShark to patch the executable in memory!
I'm thinking this is a bad precedent to set - here are some scenarios, should pubs/devs be nailed in the following (generally hypothetical) situations?
As mentioned before the Sims is a T rated game - if someone releases a patch/GameShark code to remove the mosaic, should that rating go up to an M? Removing the mosaic involves patching a few bytes in the game executable so it fails to draw the filter, and the Sims characters are Barbie dolls underneath...should the game still be rated T?
Now what happens if someone releases a slightly longer code/patch that also changes a few bytes in a texture as it's being sent to the graphics chip to make it appear that there's something between their legs?
What if a careless dev puts an error message in the game to the effect of "Oh fuck, now I'm gonna crash"? During normal gameplay, there are no bugs to trigger this error message, so no one notices unless they were scanning the disc with a hex editor. Should the ESRB say that this game cannot get an E rating because of a message that cannot be seen unless the PS2 disc is popped into a PC and scanned byte by byte?
Now what happens if someone changes a byte in the executable causing the game to crash and the error message to pop up. Are they responsible for that?
The Japanese version of Bloody Roar 3 had a debug mode where you could pose the characters any way you wanted. Sure enough, otaku with too much time on their hands started posing the characters in compromising positions. If the US version had the debug mode in it, should the ESRB rerate the game based on the possibility that you could make pr0n with it?
Rugalz brought up an interesting point about the DOA2 hack - it used a Gameshark to swap characters that were normally only visible in the attract mode into the actual game. Naked Kasumi was covered in goop in the intro so you couldn't see anything, now she's a playable character. Is Tecmo also responsible for making sure there's no possible way to hack the game?
The bottom line is "what is content?" and "what is code?" and that is something that is a very sticky question to answer. Personally, I think the people at Rockstar are either idiots (or geniuses, depending on how this plays out in the end) for allowing this to slide - I think they had plenty of opportunity to remove the scene entirely from the Xbox and PC versions of the game - but I don't think they should be held accountable for modifications to their game by users.
this is crazy.
The version of the game that Rockstar submit to the ESRB and SCEA is the one they intend to sell. They suggest the rating based on that. That game does not contain the sex scenes.
The gameshark does not 'just unlock' the sex scenes. In order to do so, it must be modifying the code in some way.
So in the end, there are two games being discussed. One is the game submitted by rockstar with an 'M' rating, and one that can be created if you poke around in the PS2 memory with a developer tool.
I see no way that Rockstar can be held even remotely liable for something they decide not to ship with, but do not remove carefully enough.
fundamentally I think that if you can unlock it with a vanilla console - i.e a button combination, then it is the responsibility of the developer/publisher. But if it requires code changes, then the game is now not the same as was shipped - the memory inside the console is now different from how it would be after boot up.
The version of the game that Rockstar submit to the ESRB and SCEA is the one they intend to sell. They suggest the rating based on that. That game does not contain the sex scenes.
The gameshark does not 'just unlock' the sex scenes. In order to do so, it must be modifying the code in some way.
So in the end, there are two games being discussed. One is the game submitted by rockstar with an 'M' rating, and one that can be created if you poke around in the PS2 memory with a developer tool.
I see no way that Rockstar can be held even remotely liable for something they decide not to ship with, but do not remove carefully enough.
fundamentally I think that if you can unlock it with a vanilla console - i.e a button combination, then it is the responsibility of the developer/publisher. But if it requires code changes, then the game is now not the same as was shipped - the memory inside the console is now different from how it would be after boot up.
Xenon
Member
The code for the mini game is already there. This is not just changing the color of a sprite. Big difference.
Barbie not the same as two people f*cking
This is just silly.
Again that is a hack in wich someone else would have to add the questionable content.
Never saw this could you see EVERTHING or was it just a barbie doll? Also a naked women not the same as sexual situations.
And if a person was able to create a mod that did this exact thing we wouldn't be hearing about this shit. Rockstar made it, left it on the disc. Its their screw-up. They need to own up.
I agree that the rating system is total BS. But its what companies have to deal with. It could be/may get much worse.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
sweet christ, those saying R* should be held responsible are fucking retarded.
You can play the game as it shipped for 10 years and never come across the Hot Coffee minigame. You have to purposely hack the game to get access to it.
Personal responsibility here, people. I know some will respond "b-b-but R* has to be responsible!" They were. They locked off the code so that you could never access it in the game as they shipped it.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people... or whatever.
You can play the game as it shipped for 10 years and never come across the Hot Coffee minigame. You have to purposely hack the game to get access to it.
Personal responsibility here, people. I know some will respond "b-b-but R* has to be responsible!" They were. They locked off the code so that you could never access it in the game as they shipped it.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people... or whatever.
CygnusXI said:
No, and a lot of people are escalating this to legal liability when it's anything but. GAF needs a breather, but I'm hardly surprised.
The movie analogy you described doesn't work because the tools to do that are already available to the end users. But the comparison to movies is also fairly pointless because this thread isn't about the MPAA's rating policy, it's about the ESRB's rating policy, which is completely different than the former's. The MPAA has a dedicated, independent board of people who watch the movies from beginning to end and apply a rating; the ESRB gets a footage reel and a document from the publisher talking about the game's contents.
The issue is more of trust. The ESRB can only function if the companies using it are candid with the organization. Should Rockstar be punished for what they did? Yes. They defied the ESRB by not disclosing the content - accessible or not - to them, and then Rockstar and Take-Two lied about it. Is this whole situation unfathomably stupid? Yes. Only in America is sex worse than violence.
I think you all need to take a step back and realize that this whole parade of stupid is much less about game content (despite what the ESRB says), and more about the ESRB making sure all publishers know that they're not just another cog in the release process.
No and yes.
I think it'd be silly to hold R* liable for the Hot coffee incident as compared to the rest of the game it's not really that much worse. Many find the hot coffee thing the least offensive thing in the whole game. It's already rated M.
However, if there was something like that in a Dora the Explorer, or something rated less than M I'd say absolutely.
I think it'd be silly to hold R* liable for the Hot coffee incident as compared to the rest of the game it's not really that much worse. Many find the hot coffee thing the least offensive thing in the whole game. It's already rated M.
However, if there was something like that in a Dora the Explorer, or something rated less than M I'd say absolutely.
jarrod said:
Thats not a standard, its the way its done. Industry outsiders need to understand that. Can you imagine the cost that would be added to game production if the game makers were forced to clean up and retest their code? Nothing good will come of this for "US" the game players.
Similar threads
- Poll