Slashdot Mirror
Hot Coffee Content Within GTA Confirmed
Gamespot has confirmed, via a long and involved process, that the PS2 version of GTA: San Andreas contains the 'Hot Coffee' content. This essentially means that Rockstar was untruthful when it previously stated the content was added by a modder, but "Given that the minigame is about as raunchy as an episode of Sex and the City, cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access, charges that San Andreas is 'pornographic' may seem extreme to some."
cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access
That's what I was afraid of. Does any one have a torrent for the video?
Doesn't matter what it takes to get to the mini-game. It's the content that matters, and after watching the video, yeah. It's pornographic. My wife and I don't have sex that hot.
Thats what you call.. cali-fornication :-p
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Why is this such a big deal with (insert FOTM political retard here) and not with everyone else who has played the game?
Virtually murder scores of people, have gang wars, steal a car, blow up a military base, do drugs, but the second sex comes in to the picture - it's horrible and it kills little baby angels!
This drama has gone a little bit too far, and I really hope the only thing it manages to do is bolster sales of GTA:SA.
Oh, never mind. Im just an idiot.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Wankers.
The question here is not the (stupid and harmless) "sex" content that the game might have, the question is that Rockstar lied, plain and simple.
It's very bad that Rockstar didn't had the balls to just say that the content was there, they tryed to duck out and now they are in a worst situation...
Way to go, Rockstar... we want the games industry to be seen as mature and respectfull and you pull an 15-year-old stunt on us all. Shame on you...
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
After all this great press coverage, Rockstar should box up the Hot Coffee mod, slap an AO rating on it, and put it on store shelves. Maybe even make the minigame a little more playable. That'll show them "think of the children" wankers how it is. Spread the message: We don't expect your kids to play it, we don't want your kids to play it, the game is for adults.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The game has a M rating in the US which is supposed to mean that it's to be played by 17 year olds and above. R Rated movies are the same, 17 and above, but are much more revealing than the pixelated scene in GTA. The question comes down to why the outrage over GTA but not a late night movie on Cinemax? I think it is because people still associate games with children, even if it is an adult themed game. Some children will get their hands on the game, just as some will be watching R rated movies. That's up to the parents to monitor.
Where Rockstar can be found at fault is for not including that scene to be rated by the ESRB. They submitted it for ratings and were supposed to reveal everything for review.
You cannot say for sure whether they lied or not. It could very well be a single coder/designer who lied. They could have coded the minigame and hidden it. And as the rest of the rockstar development knew, it was just some left over animations. Code in a game is not like code for apps. It is very messy, laced with old, unused code. The ability to track and remove this unused code is very difficult, especially with a game as large as GTA. It could also be that they really did believe that the game was removed. Do you really think that rockstar would lie when the proof would be in the code. When such clear proof exist, would any person lie to the public, especially with the game's history with some politicians.
They are going to jump on Rockstar all over, and on top of all the shit that they already say about Rockstar, they'll add "and they lied to protect themselves!"
It's too easy a target to pickup on, I don't think that the politics and the media will overlook it.
I just think that Rockstar should have handled this whole "incident" in a diferent way...
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
"This essentially means that Rockstar was untruthful when it previously stated the content was added by a modder"
If you carefully re-read the statement by Rockstar again you will see it is very cleverly worded to point the blame at the people who released the mod while avoiding actually admitting the content was theirs. They were not untruthful, they were just assisted by some very expensive lawyers in preparing a statement that makes it look like it's not their fault without outright lying. Closer inspection shows they do not deny it.
I can't understand why they tried taking that tack in the first place though. In my post here I did a simple binary comparison of the mod's files to the originals and found only a few bytes difference. It wouldn't take long for anyone to work out that the content is theirs.
A far better route to have taken IMHO is to just admit that it was a feature they removed and that they apologise for any upset caused as they did not think anyone would find it and unlock it.
At the end of the day when the lawsuits start coming in, I think the crux of Rockstar's argument has to be that to access the sex game you have to download the mod which alters the game's files. This was never intended by Rockstar and therefore the responsibility lies with the person who applied the mod to exercise judgement. And if they are not mature enough to do this, their parents should be monitoring their computing activites anyway.
http://www.codemasters-project.net/members/ladys.a vi
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
All you have to do in order to prove this content wasn't actually added by the mod is to take a savegame from GTA: San Andreas with the "Hot Coffee" mod installed and run it on an install of San Andreas that doesn't have the mod installed. You'll notice the sex scenes are still in the game even though it isn't modded. I mentioned this awhile ago... on my own website
It started back in Team Fortress Classic
this isn't about "saving the children", this is about Political bolstering. Clinton is using this little debackle to put her name in the limelight so that millions of non-gamers that have no idea whats going on can cry about the ramifications on society that a mini-game specifically removed from a final product will have. sure, the Minigame is still there, but the technical requirements needed to access it are far beyond what your typical "non-geek" 13 year old can do on a computer.
why don't we start going after TV channels like Showcase? their movies are damn near pornographic some nights and its a readily avaliable medium to anyone with cable, that means your 4 year old that just learned how to use the remote could inadvertantly watch an entire movie composed of gay orgies while your 15 year old is still trying to figure out how to get the badly made, clothed sex, "Hot Coffee" mod to work.
nonetheless, Grand theft Auto in general should not, and is not intended for, nor sold to, gamers under the age of of 17. therefore, in order for a child to play hot coffee, the parent must give his/her child permission to play GTA, a game intended for an older audience, and then the child must break the law in order to access the Sex Scene. Rockstar removed access to the minigame before shipping, every game has content that is unused due to features that where removed or altered, this content is almost always hidden away deep within the code and all access to it without a 3rd party program removed. just because its GTA its different? wake up and smell the Hot Coffee the minigame is not a part of the final product, it is not intended to be accessed by anyone, at anytime, for any reason within the limits of the law
you want to save the children? try being a parent!
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
This part of the game wasn't availible until the modder released a patch to unlock it. The code was not availible to play until this time. So I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
"So far we have learned that the "hot coffee" modification is the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game," reads the statement. "In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code. Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code, we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered by the 'hot coffee' modification."
.scm file) much less than would be required to manipulate animations and textures in the game.
how is this statement issued by R* incorrect? The mod works by editing the main.scm file(the mission script). R* intentionally removed the scenes from the game before release. The mod (even though simple) edits a flag that re-enables this feature. In effect Patrick had to reverse engineer the main.scm file, and edit copywritten materials.
Regardless of the amount of actual editing that went into making this mod (i believe it was a single bit), the time it took to find and edit the content to enable a feature that R* did not intend for release completely supports their statement. Nowhere in their statement did R* say that the content was not originally ingame. (It'd be tough to argue that considering the file was a single
Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
For one, it's not in the game. For two, modding the game to enable this feature is unlawful.
Wrong on both counts. It sounds like an Easter Egg not a mod: "cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access".
That is a big deal and quite idiotic of them. All copies of the game could be pulled from retail stores and a new manufacturing run could be required. That is a major financial mistake, someone should be fired, maybe even sued, by the publisher not some crazy parent.
I'll save you time. Here's Rockstar's statement.
Every single time, Rockstar stated, "altering the game's source code". They never said the content wasn't in there. That was a complete misinterpretation of their statement.
What they said was the equivalent of saying, "We did not distribute porn to kids. The claims that we did were the equivalent of a bunch of guys who broke a window, climbed in to our locked house, raided every drawer and closet, finally found our safe, spent hours cracking it, and finally found the porn that, sure, we owned, but we never made even slightly accessible to kids."
The best you can legitimately claim is that, like most people seem to do, Rockstar told the absolute truth but just the very specific version of it that painted them in the best light.
Unfortunately, a bunch of people who don't understand the difference between accessible [if hidden behind certain secret areas] content and content that's absolutely walled and locked off from any user no matter how they interact with the game short of figuratively breaking and entering with tools unavailable to regular users, misinterpretted that statement.
And now others who apparently don't understand computers (or don't bother to actually read the original statement) come out and make more false assumptions.
This is about comparable to SCO saying "Linux isn't fit for even late night TV" under the grounds its source code is legendarily full of profanities. You don't actually see any of them when you run Linux but, just as inaccurately, SCO can claim they exist and therefore children shouldn't be allowed to use it.
Is this really a direction we want to encourage through our own misunderstandings? Come on slashdot, we're supposed to be more intelligent than that.
I love the fact you got modded insightful ;)
Keep in mind that a standing president can't be called as a defendant. How do you think, exactly, that Clinton, therefore, was able to be put in a position to lie under oath? Answer: He wasn't a defendant, he was subpeona'd for a different matter.
The real core of this is, while probably he shouldn't have lied, he really should never have been asked any questions relating to his affair with Lewinski, as they were immaterial to the matter at hand. It was the very definition of a fishing expedition, just trying to find _anything_ to damage Clinton's administration. And "anything" they did find, but clearly the Lewinski escapade was a personal matter (which common sense dictates is not an uncommon activity in DC), and shouldn't have even been brought up in questioning.
So, the question remains, when one is the subject of a witchhunt, should they answer all questions that may aid the people running said hunt truthfully, knowing that even the smallest indiscretion will not be set aside in spite of your honesty?
Hint: In life, honesty isn't always the best policy.
Lied in court while under oath
Ok, moron, since this is such a big deal to you, maybe it would help if you actually knew what happened?
At one point, while under oath, Clinton was asked, basically, "have you had sexual relations with Lewinsky?" To this he responded, "please define sexual relations?" The prosecution, already knowing FULL WELL about the BJ, specifically left oral sex off of the list when defining 'sexual relations.' Clinton took the bait and said, TRUTHFULLY, AS DEFINED BY THE PROSECUTION, "No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Later on, it was proven that Clinton did, indeed receive a BJ from Lewinsky. BUT HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT HE DIDN'T, AS DEFINED BY THE PROSECUTION.
Fortunately, most morons don't look into the whole background of the case, and don't understand exactly how the whole thing happened. "omg he had sexxorz in teh oval office and he said he didnt!" So the prosecution got exactly what they wanted: it appeared that they had caught Clinton lying. After millions of dollars worth of investigation, being unable to turn up anything useful against him, ALL THEY COULD DO WAS TRICK HIM INTO APPEARING TO LIE UNDER OATH.
Here's the real story: Clinton DID NOT LIE. PERIOD. Starr just changed definitions around on him to make it appear that he did.
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No citizen should be so easily manipulated by lawyer-types into believing what the lawyer wants them to believe.
I apologize for the caps. I get sick of straightening people out on this -- not that most of them listen, because they prefer to believe that he lied anyway.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I know that it wasn't quite as explicit, but does anyone remember that one version of SimCopter that had the little "boxer-clad men run around kissing" feature? Why didn't we hear such an uproar about that?
>>Next, you have to make the argument that you are safe at home no matter what illicit content can be found on a Rockstar disk, so long at is accessible only through a third-party mod.
If you don't want to play the Hot Coffee mod, it's not going to download itself and surprise you the next time you go play GTA. If you're worried about kids getting it, well, if you can't figure out how to prevent them from getting the mod then they've probably seen WAY to much porn for it to matter then.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Ok, moron, since this is such a big deal to you, maybe it would help if you actually knew what happened?
s /main265539.shtml
There is a little problem with your rant. He admitted he lied, or do you consider "false testimony" and "a lie" to be different things. That would be classic if you do though.
"(CBS) Overcoming his earlier defiance, President Clinton on Friday acknowledged that he gave false testimony in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, just as prosecutors have contended. Mr. Clinton's admission in a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray brings an apparent end to the legal woes that have plagued his presidency and spare him from a possible criminal indictment after he leaves office."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/19/politic
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No citizen should be so easily manipulated by lawyer-types into believing what the lawyer wants them to believe.
And when you bought into the spin that "false testimony" and "a lie" are not the same that was not manipulation? Open your eyes, no president should be allowed to lie to the court, oh, excuse me, give false testimony to the court. Not even the sympathetic ones you like. That is a line that should not be crossed, its too dangerous.
Bill Clinton said: "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,"
But the REALLY sad thing about this is your defense of it, and your rabid attack on others. Partisian politics is killing this country. Clinton lied. He, in his own testimony admits he was trying to circumvent the truth without technically breaking the law, because that would have been *OK*. To me trying to circumvent the truth is just as bad.
I also believe that there was disinformation on Iraq. I believe Karl Rove should be fired and then prosecuted. I believe in punishing the guilty whether they share my political ideology or not. What bothers me the most about American politics today is the republicans and democrats who blindly follow their leaders and then further the lies of their party line by repeating them (as you have done).
So, I would ask you (and everyone) to turn down the rhetoric (...Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No citizen should be so easily manipulated...) and instead encourage everyone to seek the truth. Every individual should be allowed to interpret the truth as they see fit -- but we should all be zealots for making sure that the truth is actually known.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm