So... the new attacks on video games has begun. Rockstar in all of their infinite idiocy has programmed a mod called "Hot Coffee" into the newest Grand Theft Auto game, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. This mod enables characters to be naked and perform sexual acts to the best of my understanding (I'm not a GTA gamer...)

My point: WHY THE HELL DO THEY CARE?!

In the ideal world where everyone who bought a video game was at least the age of the ESRB rating suggestion (again, it's not law, folks) the people playing this game would be able to see REAL PEOPLE having sex in a movie at the cinema. As a sub point, I pose the question: which is worse? To see real boobs flopping around or some pixel characterizations bouncing about?

Anyway, I digress. Of course parents and politicians will make the argument that kids underage will play the game. I make these arguments: firstly, be a damn parent. Know what your kids are doing, bitching after the fact isn't going to do anything. Secondly: kids expose themselves to far worse things more easily and less expensively on the INTERNET.

Nextly, Washington and parents are further showing their ignorance by only attacking the big title. Sony's recent "God of War" made no bones about it. It was more brutal and more sexual than Grand Theft Auto could have ever been. But that is looked over because of the blinders that tight ass people always seem to wear. In the 50s it was comic books, in the 80s it was metal music, now it's video games.

*sigh* It simply seems to me that there are far more pressing problems to attack than little Johnny seeing some pixilated tits onscreen. Politicians always miss the big pictures so that they can be on their moral soapboxes.

Sorry if I tried to pack a little too much into one post, but what're your thoughts?

It's all a big fuss over nothing. This article had me absolutely fuming. America is the single biggest producer of pornography in the entire goddamn world, and politicians are kicking up a fuss over this!? There are far bigger problems in America.

I mean, what really is the problem? GTA actually lets you go out and kill people. If they're worried about youngsters immitating what they see in the game, surely they should be more worried about this than players being able to shag some bird as CJ.

Plus, the scenes themselves aren't exactly 'explicit'. The avatars are fully clothed. It's far removed from anything that is far more easily accessable on the Internet.

Yeah, this one gets my goat too, although for different reasons....

So, the crux of the issue is currently revolving around the fact that the disabled code shipped on the disc, and could be re-activated by a patch/hack that came from the modders community, and could be downloaded easy enough.

The argument is that Rockstar put the game forward for ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) ratification without making them aware of this disabled code. They were awarded a Mature rating. The unearthing of the Hot Coffee mod has caused some people to call for it's rating to be upped to Adults Only.

Let's look at the precise definitions of those categorisations (from the horse's mouth, so to speak):

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

Right, so the differences that I see between those ratings are as follows:
If the violence is prolonged, the game should be AO.
If the sexual contect is prolonged or graphic, the game should be AO.
If the game contains nudity, it must, by default, be AO.

However, how many films contain nudity that are M-rated? Bloody loads. So, the third point is a bit moot, as there's ample precedent for occasional nudity to be OK for Mature rated releases. The other 2 points are equally ludicrous. The entire game of GTA is one prolonged scene of violence and gore. By that argument, it should already be AO. The sexual content added thanks to the Hot Coffee mod is minimal, short, and a one-off. Given the crappy look of the GTA graphics (especially on PS2), it could hardly qualify as graphic. Especially as all you can see are some pointy polygonal boobies.

The fact of the matter is that Rockstar always have been 100% honest about the fact that they make GTA games for adults. Their adverts are targetted at the 18+ demographic. They never advertise in children's publications.

So, we have a game that's for 'mature' people. Then some content is added to that game, which, in the grand scheme of things, adds little in terms of the offensiveness of the game.

The only guilt I can assign to Rockstar is that they didn't include the Hot Coffee code in the submission to the ESRB for rating. That was their bad (maybe). It's still shaky ground as to whether including disabled code that can not be accessed in any way without hacking the game leaves the publisher liable. Could Ford get sued because someone strapped rockets to an Escort and fired themselves into a cliff? I don't think so.

Here's an interesting one related to this too - Linky Linky.
Basically, an 85 year old grandmother is suing the publisher on the basis that she bought the game for her 14 year old grandson, and due to the Hot Coffee mod, it then contained sexual content.
That makes me mad. First, check the Mature rating definition above - yes, that means that it can contain sexual content. Second, if her grandson is IT-savvy enough to download and apply the patch, I'd bet my bottom dollar he's IT-savvy enough to type "boobies" into Google. I really hope the judge throws her out of the court with a big fine.

Not tried it meself, but from the screenshots I've seen of it, only CJ is fully clothed, the girl in question has her boobs out. *shock*

Having seen the Hot Coffee clip I have to admit that it is quite graphic... you apperantly get to control thrusts and positions by careful use of the joypad (no pun intended). The level of detail and artistry is not photorealistic - but good enough to warrant an non-kiddy rating.

Here is a link to view the clip IT IS NOT WORK SAFE and should not be accessed by children... at all. It shows pixilated pornography and various sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse. I found this by doing a simple Google search for Hot Coffee Clip.
__________

The problem I have is that when Rockstar were first confronted with this they initially denied it, then blamed the programmer of Hot Coffee for creating it (!??!) then they tried to back out of it saying it was only in the code for certain platforms. They lied every time, simply to keep the rating at 17+ (at 18+ they lose the right to sell this game in numerous family-friendly outlets like WalMart).

There have been numerous games in the past that have hidden Easter Eggs that can only be accessed by hacks (that are often released or hinted at annon by the programmers so as to stir up interest when sales look like they may be flagging). These hidden bits and bobs can include God Modes and Infinite Ammo or extra levels and bonus characters (that you need to input new code to get a hold of), and sometimes it's just unused additional clips or maps that were never supposed to have made it to the final game. However, the publishers must take responsibility for their game and that includes everything in it. They created the sex scene and therefore should have taken steps to remove it entirely once the descision was made that it was too graphic to get the game a 17+ rating.

If Microsoft released the next version of Outlook Exploerer with a mistake in it that allowed someone to hack into the software and then easily hack anyone using the programme on the net, Microsoft would be rightly expected to admit their fault then remedy the situation. Goods (including computer programmes) shouldn't have defects, if defects are encountered then the producer should do their best to recify the problem. Rockstar have released a patch to eliminate Hot Coffee for people who've already bought the game, have issued 18+ Stickers to all outlets still selling the game and are to release a new version without the scene in it at all too keep the 17+ rating for future sales


If ford's next range of escort had inbuilt hidden rocket boosters - and someone let slip that you can access these boosters by first filling the gas tank with jet fuel and then hitting the steering wheel with a hammer to get the jet started - then I think Ford might have a case on their hands
__________

I agree that the issue of age restriction is a touch odd, given that if the clip had been openly marketed in the first place - it would have got the game an 18+ rating and not the 17+ rating it currently enjoys. Wow, 1 whole year difference... do the people complaining honestly think that the massive gap between 17 and 18 differentiates childhood innocence to carnal adult knowledge? Okay the rules are clear but this shouldn't be the cause for so much agro.
__________

I agree with the sentiments already expressed - perhaps the politicians and concerned parents groups should try to get parents to monitor what their kids were playing rather than bitch and moan about sex and violence in games that wouldn't be in the hands of these kids if parents were a touch more responsible. The game has always had a specific rating and if parents are happy to allow their kids to play unsupervised then why should the games industry as a whole be punished? Some parents should stop treating TV, Games Consoles and the Internet as surrogate nannys and babysitters. Looking after kids is difficult but unsupervised total access to adult material can be harmful to kids (especially younger ones), and parents should be more responsible.
__________

On the issue of violence - the US Government realeased American's Army (first person shooter and career advancement games) free over the net, and easily accessable by children of various ages. So IMO they have lost any moral high ground over that issue.
__________

So where is this going to end up? Will we see a legilsated censorship of furture computer games? Here in the UK video clip promos of upcoming games used to be included in the monthly slew of games mags (on CD or DVD), only now they can't do that as the British Board of Flim Classification needs the clips to be handed over months in advance for effective classification before release to the general public.

So a sneak preview of an upcoming game needs to be lodged months before it can be seen - roughly around the same time as the game is released... Though to be fair, given the delays in almost all major software houses, by the time the game is finalised the BBFC induced delays won't actually matter.

Ah, but read the EULA. As soon as you start to hack the game, the company who made it is no longer responsible. Yes, the code was there, but no, they are not responsible for it in any form except the one they sold.

It seems to me that Rockstar are the ones who are completely in the wrong here. Without getting into the whole thing about videogame ratings, which honestly is a subject that I can't care about at all no matter how hard I try, Rockstar are at fault. Firstly, it goes without saying that "accidently" leaving unannounced sex scenes in your game is a monumentally stupid thing to do - I don't know enough about the workings of Rockstar to say whether policies or individual employees are to blame, but somebody certainly is. Far worse, though, is lying when they got called on their incompetence/laziness. I hate seeing corporations try to pin the blame on someone else and wriggle out of their damn responsibilities - they had a responsibility to inform people about what was in their product, and they failed to meet it. I for one am glad they're being held properly responsible.

Dave: has that ever been tested in court? EULAs are full of the most ridiculous things sometimes; I often wonder if half of them would stand up to proper legal testing.

The only thing that gets me is how much violence is considered okay, but once sex gets into it, all of a sudden it's awful. So parents will let their children play a 17+ game and let it be as bloody as possible, but sex makes the whole thing so much worse. I can see arguments here, yeah, but in my mind excessive violence is worse to see than sex.

That's because you're mature for your age, dear.

Heh. South Park did a study on that...

I highly recomend checking out the most recent VG Cats and Penny Arcade.

From what I've heard, it it common to leave in deleted parts of games, especially with OOP, because an object within that part may be vital to other parts. Leaving it in but not allowing access allows the rest of the game to remain stable.

End User Agreements don't negate liability in this instance, which is why Rockstar are doing as much as they are. The difference is that the hack isn't introducing new elements, nor is it corrupting existing code - it is merely allowing hidden scenes to be accessed like a lot of Easter Eggs in various games do.


In many games yes it is necessary to leave in deleted scences, but not this one, as the code for story, sounds, models, skins and maps are all located elsewhere and nothing in the Hot Coffee scene is repeted elsewhere.

This is different to the outrageous claims made by some concerned parent's groups over Tomb Raider II - where a hack allowed you to play the game with Lara in the nude. This clearly failled on both the points you raised. EULA on non hack worked as the hack introduced new code, and even if there had been a nude skin / model for the luscious Lara it could be deemed necessary to help finalise the fully clothed Lara.

Alternatively, leaving the code in was a genuine mistake - it was on someone's to-do list, but fell off the bottom during crunch time and the final rush to get the game out on schedule.

And then when the news broke, Rockstar were scrambling for an explanation. So first off, they say the code isn't there, because that was what was supposed to happen. It takes them a day or two to get to the bottom of it, reverse-engineer the hack, and figure out that the code actually is still there.

Just as likely in my mind.

I suppose. Still, it strikes me that Rockstar really ought to know what's in the game they're selling.

In an ideal world, the contents of the software should match the documentation. In the real world, this is not always the case. Especially with the degree of complexity involved in current games - the code is sprawling.

Oops, this is Moop posting from Cand's account.



I can't see how OOP differs from any other programming paradigm in this way - if you have references to a bit of code and you remove that bit of code then you need to remove those references too or it will break. Unfortunately people are lazy.
However, it would be very easy to replace that object with a 'stubbed' (empty) version of itself which would remove the functionality but keep the object there.

I don't think this is the case though, all well programmed modern games developers value code/content seperation. The game code is in one place, the graphics, models, levels and scripting (designer friendly programming for things like triggering missions and generally what would need changing to enable this Hot Coffee thing).

The actual game code may be sprawling, as Jonman says, but the scripting tends to be more specific therefore easier to search for this kind of thing and in a far simpler programming language. It also tends to be largely written by the level designers since they are responsible for things like "when the player crosses the finish line the race ends" and don't want to have to run to the programmers to fix this and likewise the programmers don't want to have to tweak the game engine code for things like this - it is level specific and has no place in the actual code.

I'm pretty sure this was what Overfriendly_Kitten meant by this:



I'm not sure if this post actually made a point but I wanted to bring up a few things that people haven't hit upon yet.
One of these may be that it was added by the level designers and not the actual coders and never offficially added. They tend to do code reviews on game code (or at least important parts) where another programmer looks over someone's code and checks it out, I doubt they would do this on the game scripting.
The other point is that the game code is compiled - converted from a readable language like C into machine code so is very hard to reverse engineer and hack, the game scripting tends to be interpreted - the actual code remains in place and is parsed (decoded) line by line from its original form, therefore it is a lot easier to hack.

What I don't get is the people trying to capitalise on it. One grandmother bought San Andreas for her grandson, and then sued Rockstar when she found out that was in the game.

'Cause, Y'know, she thought it was just about killing cops, stealing cars and ramming prostitutes.

People can blame, blame, blame all they want. In truth, it always boils down to one thing: bad parenting.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

The morality of violence is quite easy to explain to kids. "Violence is bad". Or, if you want to be slightly more nuanced (and, let's face it, accurate), "Violence is a last resort and only to be used when other avenues fail, not to mention an ineffective solution to most problems". It's not particularly difficult, really.

The morality of sex, however? Talk about a minefield. How old is old enough (especially since we're talking about kids)? Peer pressure? Virginity? The objectification of women alone is a subject you could write a hundred books about. And just letting kids learn from the distorted images of the media really isn't an option, at least from my perspective. I can't blame parents for isolating their kids from something they could so easily - and harmfully - misunderstand.

Neither can I. But hopefully, we're not dealing with a situation in which children this young are playing the game. It's not so much as the morality I have issue with, it's how violence and sex are being treated. Of course sex and its morality are hard to explain to kids, and violence is easier. I would definitely not blame video games for violence, but the message this seems to be sending, to me at least, is that massive violence is OK, but sex isn't. I can't see why parents would want to expose their children to such violence in the first place. Portraying sex as something awful, worse than violence, is only going to make the minefield of sex worse. I don't think anyone young enough to not understand basic concepts of sex should be playing this game, and those older should not have their opinions doubted or changed by some crude scenes in a video game. I'd much rather have parents discuss the morality of sex with their children, anyway. That's a bonus as far as communication goes. Parents don't always talk to children properly about sex, because as you said, it's hard. Violence is easy to explain because you can paint it in black and white. I can see your point, however. But while making sex look bad may be an easy alternative, it doesn't help your child once they've gotten any older and have to unravel the mystery themselves. The game is rated Mature. Parents should be prepared to explain things like this if they're giving their child a 17+ game. But well, that's just me.

I've seen this a lot, but - the people complaining about the Hot Coffee scenes (their existence rather than, like me, being annoying at Rockstar's negligence) are the exact same people who were complaining about its violent content when the game was released. I don't see anybody having a double standard.

Excuse my ignorance but Was anything done to satisfy these people, or were they ignored? Because now the rating is being upped, the code is being taken out of the game, etc. I can see how the situations are radically different and that doesn't work well as a comparison, but I don't like how the fuss over sex is more than the fuss over violence, or at least what comes as a result of complaints. I don't see anyone having a double standard. I suppose it might just be a personal view of mine that violence is worse to see than sex. *shrug*

It could be argued that GTA shows the consequences of violence though. Massive police chases, people get shot and die, things get messy and the main character tends to die once things get beyond a certain point (though getting money for causing violence doesn't help).
I doubt it shows the consequences of sex or even that there are any.

I'm trying to come from a neutral viewpoint here since I'm not really participating so much as throwing ideas into the giant mixing bowl of the thread.

It could also be argued that GTA is one of those open ended games where you do what you want and accept the consequences. I happen to like that type of game, doing what the designers want you to do sucks, especially when you have to _guess_ what they want you to do because the design is so bad.



The game has an 18 certificate. If she was buying a game for someone not old enough to play it then it's her own silly fault. If not is it really going to 'damage' him that much, has he that much of a sheltered life or something? Maybe it's just that news reporters are so hungry for scandal that they miss the wood for the trees.

Hmm, you might have a point there. But I don't think there'd be as much of a problem, overall, if everyone realized



If younger kids are seeing the sex patch, well, then it is a 17+ up game... not saying that this content is OK or anything. I just can't understand what the huge fuss is about.

Well, in the first case, it was pretty simple. Rockstar submit the game for rating, a bunch of people get uppity about what's in it, then somebody reminds them that they live in America and they quiet down again. The reason that Rockstar are getting crap for sex that they didn't get for violence is that they never told anybody that there was sex in the game (arguably sex isn't in "the game", but the code is there).

I am sorry, but I don't really see what the big deal is. As far as I am concerned there are things much worse than sex in this game. I have played the game all the way through several times and can say from experience that this is mild compared to some of the actions in this game. I think dressing up in a gimp suit and beating someone to death with a dildo ranks a little higher on the "oh no you didn't" scale than having consensual sex. I think the hang up here is with the idea of sex in a video game.

Surely parents would want to prevent their children from playing a game where missions include murder, having sex with women for profit, killing police officers and rival gang members, participating in S&M, running a organized crime syndicate, etc. However all of this is included in this game and you don’t have to hack into it to participate. If a parent buys this for their child they are exposing them to all of these situations. I really think that with all the content that is provided with this game to begin it is silly for a parent to get upset because their child hacked into the game to play a simulated sex scene.

This is a feature that requires the use of external equipment (you must have a action reply or game shark if hacking the ps2 version) and intentionally hack the game code. This means your child is actively seeking to look at porn. Rockstar didn't say, "Hey looks kids here is how you have sex!” You have to change the code of the game! Hello! If you think that a kid would take the time to hack a game to see porn, don't you think they have been on the Internet and watched porn already??

I have to agree with other people regarding why they left it in the game. Video game programmers are encouraged to push the edge of what is acceptable. Most likely you had a programmer who got bored and was showing off. When the idea was rejected they locked the section down but did not remove it, as it would most likely break other portions of code. This theory is further backed by the fact that the same scene is used in the game except you don't actually see them having sex. You just hear the same sounds while you look at the outside of the house. To verify this theory I spoke to a programmer that I know who works on the Tom Clancy series. He feels this is most likely what happened and is the most viable explanation. He also agrees with the earlier statement that Rockstar denied it because they didn't know at first. The people who would have first been questioned about this would have had no idea. Also some development teams are hired just to work on a game. They are contract employees and there is a good chance they are no longer working with Rockstar. This leads me to believe that Rockstar was not denying anything, they really didn't know. If you have any experience in the corp. world you know that there is not a lot of communication between the workers and the executives. Do you thing the PR dept. of Rockstar had any idea what was going on in development? Nope.

As for the rating, I don't think they did anything wrong at all. They presented a completed game as it was intended to be played. If I change that code and that is my responsibility. If the game is played as intended then this would not be an issue at all. Not to mention that the code disrupts game play as well. It can corrupt your game and the game requires reset after the hack is performed. It is evident that Rockstar did not intend for this feature to be accessed and it is not included in the finished product. Hence I don't think they hid anything from the public.

Amen! Thank you, Ravein! That was exactly what I wanted to say, and you said it far more eloquently than I ever could.

/spam

In the End User Licencing Agreement (Or whatever) they specify that they only take responsiblity for the game (or whatever) as long as it is not modified once it is sold (outside official patches or upgrades). Which is fair, as anyone can mod ANYTHING to their own dispicable ends!

For this reason Rockstar have no legal obligation to anyone. It is as straightforward as that.

For example. Take any holy book you like. The Bible, Quo'ran, whatever. Now take a pencile and draw boobies in the margins. Should the printers of the bible now be prosecuted? I think not. It is basicly that simple...

And now think.... The people who modded it to see these 'graphic' features WANTED the end result. These are the same people who could easily go to railway sidings to look at porn. They can get it ANYWHERE. If they are tech savvy enough to mod their game they are certainly intelligent enough to get it from anywhere else.

Not to mention that the game itself is already advertised as an adult game and anyone who buys it for a minor only has themselves to blame. Kicking a prostitute to death in the groin is acceptible, but having sex with them is not? That only says to me that the people prosecuting have double standards and can not realise the hypocracy in the random wank they are screaming.

bad analogy (I've been guilty of doing the same in this very thread).

Better analogy would have been if you take the Bible, and peel back the back page off the back cover to reveal a cartoon of Jesus buggering a dog, which the printers had hidden there, out of sight.

Except in this case it's not something you can do by accident - you need to deliberately mod the game to do that. Since the age rating on the game covers the content anyway I really don't see the problem. Especially parents who brought it for their children who are under the age limit.
That's really into the territory of burglars sueing people because they broke into someone's house and fell foul of that half finished bit of DIY with all the nails sticking out.

Maybe squeezing lemon juice on the back page and revealing the Jesus/dog buggery in invisible ink would make a better analogy?

Oops, this is Moop in a Cand suit again. >_>

More like, having a new chemical invented, which allows you to see the full picture of the Jesus/dog buggery that was originally put in, but taken out, and only a vague blotch was left, but when this chemical is put on it, then you can see it.

Perhaps like having obscene pictures hidden within a hideously convoluted analogy?

And as usual he beats me to the sarcastic comment and phrases it better than ever I could...

[/spam]

I dont know much on the matter but if someone is mature enough to access this hot coffee thing, then they should be mature enough to not be offended. But there is still the possibility of a youngster getting their hands on it somehow. Not even i knew about this and im a GTA junkie!

Then that's down to irresponsible parents or sneaky kids. Age ratings can't really help that can they.

You could say the same about alcohol, guns (occasionally), knives (or other pointy household utensils) and other things people have or need that they don't want their kids to be exposed to.

Generally in those cases I don't think the company that made it can be blamed.

I have to agree with what's been said about irresponsible parenting, and changing the age rating by one year isn't going to help at all. There is no great flash of light when you turn 17 that makes you automatically more mature and better able to handle whatever you see. Raising a fuss about content that is no worse than all the rest of the game seems a bit idiotic to me. The whole game is about violence and killing. I've never played, and I don't want to. The stupid grandma needs to shut up and accept that she made a bad decision and she should take responsibility for it. Buying the game was moronic in the first place. Sorry if I seem overly harsh to an old lady, but there no excuse for stupidity. All ratings are clearly displayed to avoid confusion and mistakes like this. Blaming the company has some justification, but I don't really think that it's a good idea. Kids can access things like that from the Internet or magazines whenever they want. There was a mistake, but whining about it won't accomplish anything truly useful.
*cough* Sorry to rant. I have issues with people who duck responsibility and then blame anyone and anything for their own poor judgement.