Mod Makers Beware.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

We were in a hotel room with Rockstar yesterday. "Hot Coffee" was neither served nor offered.

 

Rubbish intro out of the way - we were sitting here earlier thinking about all this excitement surrounding unlockable sex mini-games in GTA: San Andreas, which have been dubbed Hot Coffee for reasons we can't be bothered to look up, and something crossed our minds. A bad thing. A thing that, were it to play out, would be bad news for gamers, mod makers, developers and publishers, who are probably already exchanging nervous glances over the ubiquitous water cooler regardless. And yet, at the same time, a thing that's not completely unimaginable.

 

Advertisement

While we'd imagine that vocal proponents of modding, like Half-Life developer Valve and the Doom scribes at id Software, are unlikely to change any of their plans in light of this latest storm-in-a-coffee-mug media explosion, the screaming politicians might make an impression on smaller publishers and developers. Because right now there's little distinction between whether Hot Coffee was in the game already, or created by someone else.

 

And those publishing folks could be troubled by the idea of being lambasted by the international press, or denied certification by ratings boards that parents are increasingly being instructed to consider when buying games for those under the age of 18, or perhaps even worse.

 

Politicians - particularly American ones, oddly enough - regularly use videogames as a tool to find some moral high ground and win some votes. Rockstar has made these sorts of headlines before with Vice City's notorious "Kill all the Haitians" line and Manhunt's moral-compass-on-spin-cycle antics. Most recently Eidos was in the news after a US senator hurled mud at its forthcoming cops-and-robbers title 25 to Life for its cop-killing aspects. Never mind the fact the game wasn't finished.

 

In the most extreme cases these campaigns have led to games being withdrawn and remastered with offending material cut, or denied certification, and this can be an expensive business for those involved. Litigation is rare, but as the Manhunt case arguably proved, a lot of the concepts involved baffle and divide in equal measure, and the potential for conflict - whether legal or in public relations terms - is often there even if most gamers could highlight the gaps in logic within seconds. Politicians are good at making the average Joe see this stuff in the worst possible light, and a lot of the mainstream media will race to sensationalise it too.

 

There's obviously a temptation to dismiss the Hot Coffee hullabaloo because the content was likely already hidden on the disc (Rockstar currently disputes this), reasoning that that's a situation we're unlikely to see too often. But the thing that strikes this writer is that nobody on the shouty side of the debate is all that interested in whether it was there to begin with or not. Even assuming Rockstar's completely blameless on this front, our worry is that the media and mud-slinging politicians who are seizing upon this won't accept that as a defence, and will start to hold publishers responsible for what people do with their games whether they add components themselves or not.

 

How long before mods in general bear the brunt of this?

 

People can do a lot with games these days. We've been playing with Garry's Mod for Half-Life 2 a lot lately. It lets you deposit virtually any object from the game in an enclosed play area and then manipulate it using things like balloons, nail guns and the game's weapons. Virtually anything is possible - you could theoretically build a cross, drop Half-Life 2's female lead Alyx into the play area, and then nail her to it and do goodness only knows what else. The wrong people will spot this sooner or later, particularly if this lack of distinction between user-made content and hidden developer-made content continues.

 

This could be a massive problem for mod makers. If people outside the games industry start holding publishers accountable for the things people can do with their software, they may want to avoid that problem entirely by restricting access to their source code. Rockstar's already planning to do that, it said this week. Given the way the above example would sit with the majority of Christians, you'd be able to appreciate their concern.

 

One solution you might consider is obviously moderation. Microsoft is bound to be thinking about that this week, as one of the key components of its Xbox 360 online offering is a "mod market" affair that lets players resell their own user-made content to one another, and that could become a focus for excitable media outlets in the coming days. The assumption must be that there's a degree of moderation involved in Microsoft's offering anyway, but how many other companies can afford to do that? And what if the American ERSB sets a precedent with San Andreas of re-rating the game because of mod content? There'd be problems left, right and centre. With PC games, which traditionally sell poorly compared to their console cousins, the returns probably wouldn't justify the costs in most cases.

 

And if you think this all sounds quite far-fetched, consider one worrying parallel - between Rockstar's current position and that of Grokster, the company the Recording Industry Association of America recently finished dragging through the courts because its peer-to-peer software can be used to distribute things illegally without any restriction. Videogames can be used to do horrendous, even illegal things without any restriction, even if the majority of mods aspire to do nothing more than provide harmless entertainment to people who've exhausted the stuff that came out of the box. Okay, that was a different situation involving copyright and the infamous DMCA, but it does show that American courts are willing to listen to these kinds of arguments.

 

With any luck, our silly little fears will never amount to anything. We hope, for the sake of the thousands of amateur game designers whose creative outlet could come under the spotlight through all of this, that someone cries pot, kettle, black on those sensationalising Hot Coffee. Because if mods were to be wiped away or severely restricted, the ramifications for game development in general would be extreme.

 

Source:Eurogamer.

[GhostofAnakin]

Cliff Notes version for the attention impaired?

[metadigital]

...

And if you think this all sounds quite far-fetched, consider one worrying parallel - between Rockstar's current position and that of Grokster, the company the Recording Industry Association of America recently finished dragging through the courts because its peer-to-peer software can be used to distribute things illegally without any restriction. Videogames can be used to do horrendous, even illegal things without any restriction, even if the majority of mods aspire to do nothing more than provide harmless entertainment to people who've exhausted the stuff that came out of the box. Okay, that was a different situation involving copyright and the infamous DMCA, but it does show that American courts are willing to listen to these kinds of arguments.

...

Source:Eurogamer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have highlighted the weakness in the logic of this statement. Whereas peer-to-peer software provided a means for piracy, games (even adulterated by sickos) are only going to provide images. Of virtual characters and objects.

 

Who cares if someone crucifies Alyx? Why is that offensive? It's just boring.

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about a slow news day.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Cliff Notes version for the attention impaired?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Theres a mini game called "hot coffee" which may or may not have been part of GTA. Rockstar is denying they have anything to do with it.

 

The inplication is that because you can use a video game to do something illegal that the developers may be responsible for the illegal content. Since they provided what made the illegal act possible(the game).

[Darkside]

Cliff Notes version for the attention impaired?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

EDIT: Thanks SP.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Darkside

[metadigital]

What's the illegal act?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I have highlighted the weakness in the logic of this statement. Whereas peer-to-peer software provided a means for piracy, games (even adulterated by sickos) are only going to provide images. Of virtual characters and objects.

 

Who cares if someone crucifies Alyx? Why is that offensive? It's just boring.

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about a slow news day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Makes not a jot of difference if it's illegal. ESBR are pretty upset to put it mildly.

[metadigital]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is illegal (about hot coffee or whatever else) ?

 

 

Regardless, Modmakers do not sell their mods, so they are exempt from licencing, unless the law is changed to include all (electronic) art ...

[GhostofAnakin]

Theres a mini game called "hot coffee" which may or may not have been part of GTA. Rockstar is denying they have anything to do with it.

 

The inplication is that because you can use a video game to do something illegal that the developers may be responsible for the illegal content. Since they provided what made the illegal act possible(the game).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah I see.

[metadigital]

No you don't!

[Llyranor]

The inplication is that because you can use a video game to do something illegal that the developers may be responsible for the illegal content. Since they provided what made the illegal act possible(the game).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait, as opposed to knife companies not being held responsible for illegal activities?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is illegal (about hot coffee or whatever else) ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Hot Coffee violates the agreement that rockstar signed when they submitted the game for certification. This may even lead to it being pulled in Australia (they have weird ratings). And being reclassified in other countries(if it turns out to be hidden content).

 

It's the first time anything like this has gotten this sort of media attention and thats thrown up all sorts of questions now on just what sort of mods are being distributed, and how they can hold someone responsible for them. Favourite target right now seems to be whoever made the game.

 

What no one seems to know is if this was a mod that was created or it was simply something to unlock hidden content Rockstar slipped in. Rockstar are denying everything since the whole thing exploded.

[GhostofAnakin]

No you don't! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know.

[BattleCookiee]

1) Since when is Shagging illegal

2) What the F*ck does 1 year in rating matter?

3) WTF anyways? It was not implented, and if a THIRD PARTY unlocked it it is their responsability, not R*'s...

 

EDIT:

Oh, and why it is called "Hot Coffee":

Because when your PC and his girl go shagging she asks: "You wanna have some coffee?"

 

EDIT2:

And what is "Hot Coffee" different from the Prostitutes in GTA III, VC and SA itself.

They are both fully clothed, only in SA's "Hot Coffee" you see them go up and down on each other (clothed, like said)

[metadigital]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is illegal (about hot coffee or whatever else) ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Hot Coffee violates the agreement that rockstar signed when they submitted the game for certification. This may even lead to it being pulled in Australia (they have weird ratings). And being reclassified in other countries.

 

It's the first time anything like this has gotten this sort of media attention and thats thrown up all sorts of questions now on just what sort of mods are being distributed, and how they can hold someone responsible for them. Favourite target right now seems to be whoever made the game.

 

What no one seems to know is if this was a mod that created or it was simply something to unlock hidden content Rockstar slipped in. Rockstar are denying everything since the whole thing exploded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, but that is a slightly different legal point. If Rockstar put something in the game and hid it to get around the rating system, then they are rorting the system and need to be punished.

 

If some modder puts something in their game, not only is the developer/publisher beyond litigation, but (as the modders are just fans doing their own thing) so are the modders. They aren't selling the mods. It's the equivalent to rating private websites for pornography; something that can be done by AOL, but nothing to do with the government.

 

You'll end up trying to rate mods, and that's more difficult than preventing pr0n on the internet ...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

1) Since when is Shagging illegal

2) What the F*ck does 1 year in rating matter?

3) WTF anyways? It was not implented, and if a THIRD PARTY unlocked it it is their responsability, not R*'s...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since always depending on your age.

It matters a lot to the people who do the ratings.

Because if it was left on the disk , then the only conclusion is they wanted it to be seen. In which case they breached the contract they made when the submitted the game. It may sound trivial but everyone seems rather serious about it. Rockstar have vehemently denied anything to do with it where as normally they revel in the "bad press".

[metadigital]

The inplication is that because you can use a video game to do something illegal that the developers may be responsible for the illegal content. Since they provided what made the illegal act possible(the game).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait, as opposed to knife companies not being held responsible for illegal activities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to mention car manufacturers. Still, the Winchester heiress went mad and spent her rifle inheritance on building more and more elaborate "spirit traps" in her mansion, so that the ghosts of all the people killed by her forebears' firearms would not be able to get her ...

[Llyranor]

Slicey-Dicey Knives : Because cutting peo... bread in the 21st century is the righteous thing to do!

 

We do not condone any illegal activities through our productions and thus cannot be subject to litigation,

[metadigital]

Jinsu knives cut through cans! Imagine that power in an armed robbery or hostage taking situation! your kitchen.

[Llyranor]

Imagine monkey ninjas dual-wielding those Jinsu knives, dude!

[BattleCookiee]

Since always depending on your age

Ingame: 2 Adults... It's not like CJ is doing it with 18-

Real-Life: Like the police really arrests you when you do it without being 18+ (wasn't it illegal in the US beneath 18?), like most do...

It matters a lot to the people who do the ratings

Wow, 18 year instead of 17... Here in the EU it is already 18 anyways. But you Americans probably have a Major Life-Breakthrough after 17, where you turn from total moron (age 10) to adult in 1 year, where as 17 you are absolutely shocked by any sight of Animated XXX, but after 18 love it   

Because if it was left on the disk , then the only conclusion is they wanted it to be seen. In which case they breached the contract they made when the submitted the game. It may sound trivial but everyone seems rather serious about it. Rockstar have vehemently denied anything to do with it where as normally they revel in the "bad press"

So litteraly every company can be sued for disk-material not used? I remember somewhere in 2000 or before, some hackers found a Temp-File from a game filled with Real-life pr0n, and they had absolutely NO punishment, since it was hidden...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

We do not condone any illegal activities through our productions and thus cannot be subject to litigation,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think thats true as long as you have made every attempt to safeguard against it.

If you have been lax , for example selling something that you shouldnt have to someone you will get slammed for it.

 

I would imagine at the very least you are going to have to be more careful about the "unused" files you leave on a disk.

 

It's also worth noting your not dealing with rational people here, but people with an agenda.

[metadigital]

Imagine monkey ninjas dual-wielding those Jinsu knives, dude!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as they don't make them biomods for the arms ...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Since always depending on your age

Ingame: 2 Adults... It's not like CJ is doing it with 18-

Real-Life: Like the police really arrests you when you do it without being 18+ (wasn't it illegal in the US beneath 18?), like most do...

It matters a lot to the people who do the ratings

Wow, 18 year instead of 17... Here in the EU it is already 18 anyways. But you Americans probably have a Major Life-Breakthrough after 17, where you turn from total moron (age 10) to adult in 1 year, where as 17 you are absolutely shocked by any sight of Animated XXX, but after 18 love it   

Because if it was left on the disk , then the only conclusion is they wanted it to be seen. In which case they breached the contract they made when the submitted the game. It may sound trivial but everyone seems rather serious about it. Rockstar have vehemently denied anything to do with it where as normally they revel in the "bad press"

So litteraly every company can be sued for disk-material not used? I remember somewhere in 2000 or before, some hackers found a Temp-File from a game filled with Real-life pr0n, and they had absolutely NO punishment, since it was hidden...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is from the PEGI certification form.

 

 

This assessment form should only be completed after a full viewing of the game concerned by a person who is authorised to commit the company to the answers given. Incorrect answers can damage the credibility of the age-rating system, could put your company at risk of legal action and lead to complaints from the public. Always check your answers. The ISFE administrator reserves the right to view any game given a 16+ or 18+ voluntary rating and a random sample of games given a lower voluntary rating before confirming the voluntary rating being applied for. An ISFE voluntary age-rating label cannot be used without the confirmation of ISFE administrator.

 

The porn file was never part of the game which is probably why they got away with it (bet someone got fired though) This is a totally different thing.

[BattleCookiee]

This is from the PEGI certification form.

 

 

This assessment form should only be completed after a full viewing of the game concerned by a person who is authorised to commit the company to the answers given.  Incorrect answers can damage the credibility of the age-rating system, could put your company at risk of legal action and lead to complaints from the public.  Always check your answers.  The ISFE administrator reserves the right to view any game given a 16+ or 18+ voluntary rating and a random sample of games given a lower voluntary rating before confirming the voluntary rating being applied for.  An ISFE  voluntary age-rating label cannot be used without the confirmation of ISFE administrator.

 

And that's what they did...see the FULL game...

Not the FULL game with added XXX-Mods made by Third Parties...