And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.
NM?! The New Mexico NG would have to cross the entire state of Texas to get there. Why would the NM guard even be needed when TX is so much closer? Where were they?
Sure, I get what you're saying now. I don't see why it's important that it was easy to find; if it was somehow obfuscated, that would be okay then? The whole point was that it was extra material left around because other parts of the game may have still depended on parts of it.
Still you're right that they are under scrutiny and should have known better... maybe, like I said I'm still not sure Rockstar thinks this is a bad thing, and if so why would they go out of their way to prevent it in the future?. It will be bad for all of us if it results in government regulation of games, but right now Rockstar is getting free publicity up the wazoo. Hell, I don't think a tenth as many people would have heard of 2 Live Crew if Jack Thompson hadn't done his best to keep them in the news with obscenity lawsuits.
There's a big difference between flipping a bit here and there and actually adding the new content to the game.
No, there isn't. "Flipping a bit here and there" of game logic can have a huge effect, and thus actually create new content (like rocket-spewing grunts), things you could never do just by adding artwork. There is a technical limitation of the game consoles that it is easier to mess with game logic via the Game Shark than to introduce new models or levels, but you're still changing the game and making things that weren't in the game before.
There've probably been GTA maps for the Xbox, but probably not the PS2, so I'll give you that. So what? Just because the technical means to mod the PS2 version are more limited doesn't mean it is any less of a mod. And it doesn't mean you can't produce pornographic content where non existed before.
For example in Oblivion modders stuck a male skin on a female model to get a topless woman. A bit here or there, and you have nudity. The content is on the disk, it was easy to find (easier than Hot Coffee, since male skin was a visible part of the game already) and easy to enable. The only thing missing is the close scrutiny. So let's say that they now come under scrutiny -- what should they do? Rate the game AO because you could alter the game to see naked boobs?
In a generic set of circumstances I'd totally agree with you. I couldn't believe it when they went after the Sims because of a totally independent mod.
I'm saying in these circumstances. The material was not in the game, and it is the game that gets rated. The ESRB should not have to punch in every Game Shark code possible.
Um, no, it was stupid hindsight or not. By then, Rockstar had already dealt with two previous GTA games.
I'm not understanding why that's significant. Are you certain that GTA3/Vice City didn't contain disabled content that would go against the ESRB rating if it were enabled?
It means the traditionally non-mod'able version on the PS2 and XBOX could see the content. It wasn't just the PC version that was affected. I doubt this whole thing would have blown up otherwise.
Of course they're modable, or you wouldn't have been able to modify the bits necessary to enable the content. The modding capabilities are reduced, but obviously existant.
I've been modding games for a long time. Back when I started, "modding" was altering troop parameters in Warcraft, or using DeHacked to change Doom's logic around (without actually being able to introduce new logic). For example, I made a mod for Doom that made the normal pistol grunts fire Cyberdemon rockets, just by tweaking one entry in an animation table. That's a mod. I also had a mod that turned the flying skulls into cute little robots that exploded like barrels, with new graphics and everything. Also a mod, same as the first. I was changing the behavior or appearance of the game, thus modding.
That's what modding has always meant for more than ten years. It is only now and only in the context of the Hot Coffee mod that people are starting to say "Is it really a mod if it doesn't add any new content, it just changes the way the game behaves?" The answer is an unequivocal yes.
Saying that San Andreas should be rated based on what this mod did is silly. It would be as silly as saying that the original Doom contained rocket-shooting grunts, just because my mod didn't require any new content in order for it to work.
Anyway, I do think I agree that this wouldn't have been a huge PR issue if it had only affected the PC version.
The content was on the disc. The 'mod' simply unlocked it.
On the disc, but not in the game. The mod, as the word implies, changed the behavior of the game. Without that mod, you would never see the content on the disc because it was not part of the game.
Yes, the mod simply unlocked it, but it doesn't matter how simple it was, it was a mod that made the content available. No mod, no content.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's so 'bloody obvious'.
You don't think it's bloody obvious that a third-party modification to a game could modify what kinds of content you see in that game? In this specific case, it's certainly not like the Hot Coffee mod was coy about what kind of content it was unlocking for you.
I find it unfathomable that anyone who would be offended by the mod would download it and apply it unwittingly, and if they didn't apply the mod then they would never see the offensive content, and thus have nothing to complain about because the ESRB rating is 100% accurate. But complain they do.
The hack to unlock it was basically just a bit change, and the 'naughty' bits were made by Rockstar. It was remarkably stupid of them to leave it in.
In hindsight, maybe, but when designing the game they left it on the disc most likely as a testing issue (it can be hard to remove part of a game and guarantee you aren't breaking any other part), and since they disabled the content and never intended anyone to see it, they thus had no reason to think it would be a problem. Sure, they underestimated the power of whiny moralizers who don't understand computers. I guess it will depend on how this all shakes out as to whether Rockstar will "learn their lesson" and do a better job of removing disabled content.
As far as it being "just a bit change", a single bit can change everything. What would be the practical difference between the existing Hot Coffee mod, and a mod which itself contained nude models/skins? The answer is the file size of the patch. Nothing else would change. It would be exactly how it is now: No patch, no nudity. Patch, nudity. It doesn't matter if it takes changing one bit or ten billion bits to get that effect, the fact is you had to change the game to get the effect.
By notifying you of what's in the game? Oh those value imposing bastards.
The sex scene exposed by Hot Coffee was not in the game, and hence there was no need to notify you of it.
The only notification that Rockstar/ESRB may be remiss in omitting is a warning that the ratings only apply to the un-modded game, and that if you apply a mod you may see things you don't want. I can't think of any way of wording this that doesn't sound snarky and condescending, because it's so bloody obvious. It'd be like having to say that a toaster's specified amperage draw no longer applies if you drop the toaster in a bathtub.
I am not really disagreeing with you, I just think the problem is much deeper than simple sexual provincialism. Regrettably, I don't have a solution.
I do but unfortunately my solution, "Kill everyone but me", has it's own problems, not the least of which is getting everyone to agree on who the "but me" part refers to.
But your bathing suit did not come with anything that could offend, however inaccessible. This game did. Your explanation requires the application of 3rd party content (your crotch) before any offence is had, a bathing suit with a hole in it does not in itself offend, only when it is worn.
And a modded GTA game does not in itself offend, only when it is played. Maybe a bathing suit isn't the best analogy, but it's suitable because the principle is the same: You have to take a deliberate action to change the product in order to get the offensive result.
This leads to an interesting dilemma of how much 3rd party content is required for it to be a 'mod' ? Oblivion hackers applied a male skin to a female mesh to create boobies, does this count?
The answers are "any", and "yes".
Remember, "mod" is short for "modification", and back when game modding was in it's infancy something like swapping skins was absolutely considered a mod. Or even before skins -- I modded Doom to make the pistol grunts fire Cyberdemon rockets. I didn't add any new content, all I did was change a single entry in an animation table, but guess what that's a mod. If it changes the presentation of the game in any way, then it's a mod. If the mod changes the presentation such that it offends you, then don't freaking install the mod. The ESRB cannot be responsible for what a mod does.
If people actually did that then I would agree with you that they were insane.
Well if nobody who doesn't want to see boobies applied the Hot Coffee mod to the game, and thus none of them saw boobies in the game, what exactly is everyone complaining about? Since they didn't modify the game, the ESRB rating (which applies only to the unmodified game for what I pray to God are obvious reasons) was 100% accurate.
If a tree falls in the woods when no one is around, does it make a sound?
But someone is around -- you, the person who chopped the tree down. The tree was not going to fall until you came up to it with an axe, chopped it down, cried "Timber!", and then got upset that the tree fell and made a loud noise. Getting all existential about it after the fact -- "Sure I cut the tree down, but it already had the potential to fall and I just unlocked it!" -- doesn't change anything.
So you're telling me that if your Sister is in a locked room that you can't get to, but she's having sex with your Father, if you break into the room, it's YOUR FAULT for seeing it?
If the only reason she's having sex with your father is because you locked them in the room and refused to let them out until they screw, then yes that's YOUR FAULT. You took conscious action to deliberately bring about the result, and there is no possible way you can say that isn't your fault.
Your analogy only makes the faintest of sense if you're implying that people are accidentally applying the Hot Coffee mod and thus just sort of stumbling into this content. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be that stupid and successfully apply the patch. I can fathom no way in which the ESRB or Rockstar should or could be held accountable for that kind of stupidity.
In the end, it does matter if the content was in the game even if it was not immediately accesable.
It only matters to people who don't understand the simple concept that applying a third-party mod to a game may change the content of that game.
The content was not in the game. There was no possible way for you to encounter that content in the game. You could only do so by changing the game.
If you didn't want to see bare breasts, and you never installed the Hot Coffee mod, you would never see any breasts, and the ESRB rating would be completely correct and you would be happy.
But apparently there are people out there who don't want to see bare breasts, then go download a mod that says it will show them breasts, apply it to the game, see breasts, and are offended.
Uhm, the Mod did not add the content like the mod you refer to in UT2004.
So what? In both cases you cannot see the content without a mod, and after applying a mod you can. The only difference is the size of the mod you have to apply, but the concept -- modifying the game -- is the same. The ESRB should not -- in fact cannot -- be responsible for modifications made to a game by users after it has been purchased.
Besides San Andreas could have been rated AO just on the basis that it has extended periods of violence which I might add are illegal kind of violence like shooting all the hookers in town or killing cops. This is different from a combat game where you choose a side to fight on.
A combat game like... CS? I'm pretty sure the Terrorist side's actions wouldn't be considered legal. Street Fighter? Street fighting is illegal, don't you know. I don't see why choosing a side makes a difference.
Well it doesn't make a difference, anyway, because your views on violence in GTA are not the issue. The discussion is about nudity that did not exist in the game Rockstar released and the ESRB rated. Then some idiot modifies the game to show nudity, and suddenly everyone thinks the rating should have been different because Rockstar should have realized that somebody might make a modification that shows nudity. Which is ridiculous.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with children seeing boobies. It's the fact that Rockstar didn't DECLARE there were boobies to the ESRB.
There were no boobies to declare.
There were no boobies until you applied a modification to the game downloaded off the internet.
At the point at which you are applying a modification to the game, does it matter if the mod is just unlocking previously innaccessible content on the disk, or if the mod contained the boobies itself? You're modifying the game from its original, boobless, presentation.
If there was an "Iced Tea" mod that put beastiality into the game, would it be Rockstar's fault for not notifying the ESRB that their game might, at some point in the future, depending on what internet modders do, contain beastiality?
The ESRB rating of the game GTA was 100% accurate, and was sufficient for any parent to make a fully informed decision. If that parent or their child then goes and modifies the game such that it shows boobs, that is their fault, not Rockstar's or the ESRB.
It wasn't an easter egg, it was disabled content. An easter egg is intended to be accessible from within the game, but just not in an obvious way. Disabled content is not intended to be accessible through any in-game means, but of course it is possible to change the game code to allow access. It's the difference between finding an egg hidden behind the couch, and finding an egg in a dumpster. The one behind the couche was put there on purpose. Nobody expected you to go rifling through the dumpster looking for eggs.
How could the ESRB have done a better job? There was no way to get at this content by playing the game. The only way to get at it is to get a mod for the game that unlocks it. Does the ESRB rate games based on every mod that exists, or may possibly exist in the future? Did they rate UT2004 only after it had been out for two years, and they had downloaded every mod for the game?
Maybe the ESRB has problems and needs to do a better job. Hot Coffee is a terrible example to try to prove it. The only thing Hot Coffee shows is that 1) a lot of people don't understand the difference between having something built into the game, and downloading a mod for a game and 2) maybe moddable games should carry an ESRB warning similar to the ones for online games, something like "Game experience may change if you deliberately go out on the internet, download a mod, and install it."
Or maybe something like: "ESRB warning: To the best of our knowledge, this game contains no boobies. If you don't want to see any boobies, then don't install any modifications that purport to show you boobies."
I understand the risks of going public, but I also look at Intel dumping billions of profit into fabs.
Yeah, Intel has unparalleled fab tech and fab capacity. I assure you they aren't paying for all their fabs in cash, though.
I just can't sit back and say, "It's the investor's fault AMD is hurting." AMD has been public for a long, long time. If the investors are such a risk maybe the should do some cost cutting and fund new fab capacity with profit rather than speculative public investor funds.
A new fab can easily cost $5 billion and takes years to build. You don't just "do some cost cutting" and find yourself with $5 billion in extra profits, at least not in time to build the fab so it is finished when you need it, or without cutting the R&D that you need so that you have good products that will sell well enough to need the extra capacity.
Also, my point is that AMD isn't really hurting. Their market share is capped by fab capacity at the moment, yes, but Fab 36 is nearly online because AMD went to investors to get the money to start building the new fab several years ago. They predicted back then that they would need the extra capacity now, and while it'd be nice if Fab 36 was producing wafers now instead of next year, they actually did a good job of anticipating the need and then executing on the building plan so that the window in which they could use more capacity but don't have it is relatively short. Besides, to make use of Fab 36 now it'd have to be tooled for 90nm then re-tooled for 65nm which would take a long time and a lot more money than just targetting Fab 36 for 65nm.
If you want to say that investor's caused this, then you are saying AMD "plays the market" by putting important eggs in the public's basket. Maybe AMD shouldn't be public anymore.
I assure you Intel does the same thing, and in fact any similar manufacturing company does too. And the point was that investors -- which doesn't necessarily mean holders of publicly traded stock, btw -- are responsible for a company not having enough capital to grow as they need to, because providing a company with capital needed to grow is what an investor is for. This is not what has happened to AMD, because they did get the investment money to build a new fab, so if I say that investors caused this as in AMD's current situation, that would be praise not blame.
On the other hand, YouTube is mostly non-copyrighted material.
Attack of the pedant: YouTube is mostly copyrighted (since in the U.S. everything is copyrighted automagically) material hosted and distributed with permission of the author (implied by them uploading it to YouTube). But I know what you meant, non-infringing material.
Since then, anytime the get a good product, they blow it on production, leaving Intel to fill the void they created.
There's a difference between a production problem and a capacity problem, though they both result in supply failing to meet demand. A production problem is when you theoretically could manufacture enough parts to satisfy demand, but your process, technology, or chip design is flawed and is not reliable enough to meet production goals. This is especially bad when you tell your customers that they can expect so many chips, and then you fail to deliver them. A capacity problem is when you couldn't possibly produce enough chips
AMD has had plenty of production problems in the past, when their market share was low enough they've had the fab capacity to produce enough chips, but they were simply unable to. When this happens, you have to fix the design, fix the process, tweak the technology parameters, whatever to correct the problem. While this has hurt AMD quite a bit at various times, they did recover, and it didn't fundamentally limit their marketshare.
Now, AMD has reached a point where they simply have a capacity problem. Their production process and yields are very good, but their market share is such that Fab 30 is physically incapable of producing enough chips to meet demand, even if it were working perfectly and every chip on every wafer was good. Their market share is now capped. When this happens, there's only one thing you can do: Build more capacity.
AMD hasn't had this kind of problem before. They would have loved to have this problem instead of the production problems they've had in the past.
It is where they have failed again and again and again. I can't believe they haven't learned yet.
Oh, but they have. In particular, they anticipated this problem years ago and started to build Fab 36, which is about to come on line right when their capacity issues are becoming a serious limiter to their growth. Fab 36 is going to mean a lot more capacity for AMD, and let them grow their marketshare by a lot. Now they may have production problems with the new fab, but once they get those worked out they won't be having any capacity problems for a while -- and if they do, they will giddily ply investors to help them build a new fab.
P.S. speaking of investors, the point kfg was trying to make is that a capacity problem can only be solved by increasing capacity, which requires investment in a new fab. If investors fail to invest in the extra capacity, and the company hence cannot meet demand and fails, then it is the investors who are responsible. Somewhat; after all it is the company's job to seek out investors to help them build a new fab.
It's really not that simple. The process size is usually given as the minimum transistor length. Other parameters (minimum metal trace width, minimum distance between active regions, etc) may not shrink by the exact same amount. So you can't just scale your 90nm design by 65/90 and expect it to pass the design rules. I'd say that 1.5 as many chips is a reasonable guess. If I wanted a better guess, I'd look up the die sizes of previous chips that made process transitions with a minimum number of architectural changes to get an idea what real scaling factors you can expect.
On the other hand, the smaller your chip the better wafer utilization you get because the square chips better fit into the edges of the round wafer. This isn't a huge effect, though, unless you're talking really huge chips vs really small ones.
The big deal is that AMD's 65nm process is also coming with 300mm wafers. That's 2.25x the number of die/wafer right there, plus a little bit from being able to again pack chips to the edges of the wafer better.
Fab 36 is going to mean a hell of a lot more capacity for AMD. They're probably estatic to be having this "problem" right now.
Did Intel switch to 65nm and 300mm sooner than AMD? Yes. Did they switch to copper and low-K dieelectric before AMD? No. Did their 90nm production even work quite right for Intel ever? Not sure. When the 90nm P4s used more power than their 130nm brethren you have to wonder.
I think Intel's 90nm process was working just fine such as it is. In my opinion the fact that the 90nm P4 burned more power than the 130nm P4 was due to two things:
First, the Prescott core that was released in 90nm had more pipe stages than the 130nm Northwood core, in particular more pipe stages operating at the double-speed ALU clock frequency, so this means many more transitions per cycle. Other architectural changes probably added to an increase in dynamic power.
Second was the elephant in the room that all silicon manufacturers were trying to ignore, but which suddenly started stampeding around crushing things in a non-ignorable fashion at 90nm: Leakage current. All transistors conduct a small amount of current even when switched off. The problem is that this current rises as the length of the transistor decreases. Everyone saw that leakage was becoming a greater proportion of the total power consumed, but weren't doing much about it. Apparently 90nm was some kind of tipping point, and suddenly leakage was burning 25-50% of the power in the chip and you couldn't do anything about it other than power the transistors down.
Combine these two things, and Prescott was a power monster. Other chips that have less of a problem with dynamic power were better able to handle the increase in static power.
In computer architecture there's an age-old debate about the "speed demon" vs the "brainiac" which has gone on forever with no obvious answer. Roughly speaking the P4 is a speed demon, K8 and P-D are brainiacs. While I could argue about architecture and why one is better than the other, the outcome in reality has been decided. It is interesting that in the end the Speed Demon lost, and power was what struck the killing blow.
Also, The AMD-ATI merger does not bode well for Linux users, given ATI's abysmal track record. I refuse to buy ATI products and am now avoiding AMD until I see whether or not ATI cleans up its act. (insert a rabid "fuck ATI" right about here)
Naively, since AMD, the larger company, bought ATI I would figure AMD's culture of openness would dominate. At least, I hope this is the case, because I'm sick of having only one choice for graphics cards (though I'm used to it; ever since 3dfx).
Anyway, it doesn't seem fair to refuse to buy AMD's processors (as opposed to graphics cards/chips) because of ATI's poor linux support when AMD has been a huge supporter of free software, in particular of gcc and to a lesser extent the Linux kernel.
Though I will still not buy AMD/ATI (or DAAMIT as the Inquirer calls it) graphics products until they do actually improve. And I will continue buying AMD processors until they start becoming more like ATI.
Nintendo is garnering a great deal of good will (though the one controller in the package is a little bit of a setback) while Sony continues to tick off its customers.
I hate to break it to you, but Sony's financial performance most likely has very little to do with customer ill-will. First, in 2005 no next-gen consoles were available so the PS2 was competing against its traditional foes the Xbox and GC. As of Q3 of 06 the 360 has been out for quite a while and the PS2 is at the end of its life, producing minimal income, and the PS3 isn't out yet. So their position in the home console market is at its weakest point while their R&D expenses are at their highest, but this is natural in the transition from one generation to another, something they certainly expected. Now on the portable front they have failed to do as much with the PSP as they had hoped, while the DS is doing very well. That's normal market competition, and it turns out the DS is the more compelling product for most people.
The things that make you and I hate Sony as a company, the lawsuits, the root kits, and so forth, have most likely resulted in minimal real impact to their bottom line. The Sony exec who said the rootkit was not a big deal because most people don't know what one is was actually right if you're talking in terms of corporate PR, which are the terms we're talking about here.
Exploding batteries, on the other hand, are something everyone understands, and had a direct impact on sony's bottom line.
Next quarter is when the PS3 begins to sell. We'll see then whether Sony's strategy pays off -- I'm guessing no, but I don't know. The point is that is when their opportunity for significant revenue will begin. In the meantime, looking at their financials in this quarter vs Q3-05 only reveals the difference in the game console market over that time, not a boycott movement against Sony.
Huh, that's a good idea to try. I always soak my beard before I'm shaving since we all know from our barbers that wet hair cuts easier, but I also use shaving cream. I don't know why, I thought it acted as a lubricant. Since I already soak my beard, would I get a better shave without shaving cream or would it make no difference (other than not having to use the cream)? Either way, the main issue is probably that I don't wait long enough for my beard to get soaked through. There's never enough time in the mornings...
I think it was sour grapes on Immersion's part to bring this topic up over and over again when they saw the additional $90m swimming away... You really think they care about the gamers?
Ha! No, of course not. The point is that I have no sympathy for Sony, because they are a terrible abuser of IP laws themselves. They got in a fight with another big IP asshole, Immersion, and lost. Now they pretend as if they never wanted to have rumble anyway.
Assholes they may be, I don't think "sour grapes" applies to Immersion. I haven't heard them claim that they didn't really want Sony's money. "Sour grapes" doesn't just mean "sore loser".
I'm no Sony apologist. They have made a lot of crappy choices and Ken "Crazyman" Kuaragi has spewed enough bullshit to make me think really hard about ever buying the PS3, but I think it's right to show Immersion the finger.
They tried to show Immersion the finger in court, and they lost. Now they aren't so much showing anyone the finger as crying and going home and pretending they never wanted to play ball anyway. Too bad Sony hadn't lobbied for patent law reform that might have assisted them in their court battle. Why didn't they lobby for it? Because they benefit from patent laws themselves and don't want them reformed. So when the system that they support bites them in the ass, I call that poetic justice.
Of course it was stupid to remove rumble, and of course it wasn't necessary to support the motion sensing. Sony's just trying to make the best of bad deal. The rumble patent is probably the one part of the PS3 development/marketing on which I actually sympathize with them. The patent was total crap. Way to broad, way too obvious. We should be thanking Sony for trying to fight patent, rather than rewarding Immersion through settling.
Yeah, this is obviously just a case of sour grapes when they were denied the use of rumble due to losing the lawsuit. Their post-facto justifications ring terribly hollow as a result. It's really just spin control. If they didn't make rumble sound like a non-feature, then people might think the other consoles were better for including rumble, obviously not what Sony wants. They can't just come out and say what is obviously the truth: "We would have loved to include rumble instead of this sixaxis BS, but we lost a patent infringement lawsuit so we can't." The truth hurts when you're in marketing.
While the patent sucks, I still don't feel sorry for Sony. You can't be such a strong proponent of Intellectual Property laws (I'm deliberately using the over-general term that companies like Sony made popular) without expecting to get bitten by them yourself when you infringe someone else's IP. Is the patent silly? Yes. Are a thousand pieces of IP produced by Sony equally silly, and equally likely to get you sued if you violate them? Yes. I feel no more sorry for Sony than I feel sorry for a fantasy novel villain who is dragged down into the abyss by the horrible demon they themselves summoned.
I won't feel sorry for Sony until they recognize the harm the current state of IP law is doing and start speaking out against it. Not likely to happen for quite a while, and frankly I hope this happens to Sony again, and again, and again, and to any other strong-IP proponent, until they either wake up and realize these laws are damaging the industry or go bankrupt in their obstinance.
I'm just wondering why they think Talladega Nights is a good showpiece for Blu-Ray technology. King Kong makes sense as the visuals are a big part of the movie. But a comedy? I'm not getting the logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone is solely interested in power.
True, but none of those people are Presidents.
And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.
NM?! The New Mexico NG would have to cross the entire state of Texas to get there. Why would the NM guard even be needed when TX is so much closer? Where were they?
Oh, right.
Does that clarify my views a bit?
Sure, I get what you're saying now. I don't see why it's important that it was easy to find; if it was somehow obfuscated, that would be okay then? The whole point was that it was extra material left around because other parts of the game may have still depended on parts of it.
Still you're right that they are under scrutiny and should have known better... maybe, like I said I'm still not sure Rockstar thinks this is a bad thing, and if so why would they go out of their way to prevent it in the future?. It will be bad for all of us if it results in government regulation of games, but right now Rockstar is getting free publicity up the wazoo. Hell, I don't think a tenth as many people would have heard of 2 Live Crew if Jack Thompson hadn't done his best to keep them in the news with obscenity lawsuits.
There's a big difference between flipping a bit here and there and actually adding the new content to the game.
No, there isn't. "Flipping a bit here and there" of game logic can have a huge effect, and thus actually create new content (like rocket-spewing grunts), things you could never do just by adding artwork. There is a technical limitation of the game consoles that it is easier to mess with game logic via the Game Shark than to introduce new models or levels, but you're still changing the game and making things that weren't in the game before.
There've probably been GTA maps for the Xbox, but probably not the PS2, so I'll give you that. So what? Just because the technical means to mod the PS2 version are more limited doesn't mean it is any less of a mod. And it doesn't mean you can't produce pornographic content where non existed before.
For example in Oblivion modders stuck a male skin on a female model to get a topless woman. A bit here or there, and you have nudity. The content is on the disk, it was easy to find (easier than Hot Coffee, since male skin was a visible part of the game already) and easy to enable. The only thing missing is the close scrutiny. So let's say that they now come under scrutiny -- what should they do? Rate the game AO because you could alter the game to see naked boobs?
In a generic set of circumstances I'd totally agree with you. I couldn't believe it when they went after the Sims because of a totally independent mod.
I'm saying in these circumstances. The material was not in the game, and it is the game that gets rated. The ESRB should not have to punch in every Game Shark code possible.
Um, no, it was stupid hindsight or not. By then, Rockstar had already dealt with two previous GTA games.
I'm not understanding why that's significant. Are you certain that GTA3/Vice City didn't contain disabled content that would go against the ESRB rating if it were enabled?
It means the traditionally non-mod'able version on the PS2 and XBOX could see the content. It wasn't just the PC version that was affected. I doubt this whole thing would have blown up otherwise.
Of course they're modable, or you wouldn't have been able to modify the bits necessary to enable the content. The modding capabilities are reduced, but obviously existant.
I've been modding games for a long time. Back when I started, "modding" was altering troop parameters in Warcraft, or using DeHacked to change Doom's logic around (without actually being able to introduce new logic). For example, I made a mod for Doom that made the normal pistol grunts fire Cyberdemon rockets, just by tweaking one entry in an animation table. That's a mod. I also had a mod that turned the flying skulls into cute little robots that exploded like barrels, with new graphics and everything. Also a mod, same as the first. I was changing the behavior or appearance of the game, thus modding.
That's what modding has always meant for more than ten years. It is only now and only in the context of the Hot Coffee mod that people are starting to say "Is it really a mod if it doesn't add any new content, it just changes the way the game behaves?" The answer is an unequivocal yes.
Saying that San Andreas should be rated based on what this mod did is silly. It would be as silly as saying that the original Doom contained rocket-shooting grunts, just because my mod didn't require any new content in order for it to work.
Anyway, I do think I agree that this wouldn't have been a huge PR issue if it had only affected the PC version.
The content was on the disc. The 'mod' simply unlocked it.
On the disc, but not in the game. The mod, as the word implies, changed the behavior of the game. Without that mod, you would never see the content on the disc because it was not part of the game.
Yes, the mod simply unlocked it, but it doesn't matter how simple it was, it was a mod that made the content available. No mod, no content.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's so 'bloody obvious'.
You don't think it's bloody obvious that a third-party modification to a game could modify what kinds of content you see in that game? In this specific case, it's certainly not like the Hot Coffee mod was coy about what kind of content it was unlocking for you.
I find it unfathomable that anyone who would be offended by the mod would download it and apply it unwittingly, and if they didn't apply the mod then they would never see the offensive content, and thus have nothing to complain about because the ESRB rating is 100% accurate. But complain they do.
The hack to unlock it was basically just a bit change, and the 'naughty' bits were made by Rockstar. It was remarkably stupid of them to leave it in.
In hindsight, maybe, but when designing the game they left it on the disc most likely as a testing issue (it can be hard to remove part of a game and guarantee you aren't breaking any other part), and since they disabled the content and never intended anyone to see it, they thus had no reason to think it would be a problem. Sure, they underestimated the power of whiny moralizers who don't understand computers. I guess it will depend on how this all shakes out as to whether Rockstar will "learn their lesson" and do a better job of removing disabled content.
As far as it being "just a bit change", a single bit can change everything. What would be the practical difference between the existing Hot Coffee mod, and a mod which itself contained nude models/skins? The answer is the file size of the patch. Nothing else would change. It would be exactly how it is now: No patch, no nudity. Patch, nudity. It doesn't matter if it takes changing one bit or ten billion bits to get that effect, the fact is you had to change the game to get the effect.
By notifying you of what's in the game? Oh those value imposing bastards.
The sex scene exposed by Hot Coffee was not in the game, and hence there was no need to notify you of it.
The only notification that Rockstar/ESRB may be remiss in omitting is a warning that the ratings only apply to the un-modded game, and that if you apply a mod you may see things you don't want. I can't think of any way of wording this that doesn't sound snarky and condescending, because it's so bloody obvious. It'd be like having to say that a toaster's specified amperage draw no longer applies if you drop the toaster in a bathtub.
I am not really disagreeing with you, I just think the problem is much deeper than simple sexual provincialism. Regrettably, I don't have a solution.
I do but unfortunately my solution, "Kill everyone but me", has it's own problems, not the least of which is getting everyone to agree on who the "but me" part refers to.
But your bathing suit did not come with anything that could offend, however inaccessible. This game did. Your explanation requires the application of 3rd party content (your crotch) before any offence is had, a bathing suit with a hole in it does not in itself offend, only when it is worn.
And a modded GTA game does not in itself offend, only when it is played. Maybe a bathing suit isn't the best analogy, but it's suitable because the principle is the same: You have to take a deliberate action to change the product in order to get the offensive result.
This leads to an interesting dilemma of how much 3rd party content is required for it to be a 'mod' ? Oblivion hackers applied a male skin to a female mesh to create boobies, does this count?
The answers are "any", and "yes".
Remember, "mod" is short for "modification", and back when game modding was in it's infancy something like swapping skins was absolutely considered a mod. Or even before skins -- I modded Doom to make the pistol grunts fire Cyberdemon rockets. I didn't add any new content, all I did was change a single entry in an animation table, but guess what that's a mod. If it changes the presentation of the game in any way, then it's a mod. If the mod changes the presentation such that it offends you, then don't freaking install the mod. The ESRB cannot be responsible for what a mod does.
If people actually did that then I would agree with you that they were insane.
Well if nobody who doesn't want to see boobies applied the Hot Coffee mod to the game, and thus none of them saw boobies in the game, what exactly is everyone complaining about? Since they didn't modify the game, the ESRB rating (which applies only to the unmodified game for what I pray to God are obvious reasons) was 100% accurate.
If a tree falls in the woods when no one is around, does it make a sound?
But someone is around -- you, the person who chopped the tree down. The tree was not going to fall until you came up to it with an axe, chopped it down, cried "Timber!", and then got upset that the tree fell and made a loud noise. Getting all existential about it after the fact -- "Sure I cut the tree down, but it already had the potential to fall and I just unlocked it!" -- doesn't change anything.
So you're telling me that if your Sister is in a locked room that you can't get to, but she's having sex with your Father, if you break into the room, it's YOUR FAULT for seeing it?
If the only reason she's having sex with your father is because you locked them in the room and refused to let them out until they screw, then yes that's YOUR FAULT. You took conscious action to deliberately bring about the result, and there is no possible way you can say that isn't your fault.
Your analogy only makes the faintest of sense if you're implying that people are accidentally applying the Hot Coffee mod and thus just sort of stumbling into this content. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be that stupid and successfully apply the patch. I can fathom no way in which the ESRB or Rockstar should or could be held accountable for that kind of stupidity.
In the end, it does matter if the content was in the game even if it was not immediately accesable.
It only matters to people who don't understand the simple concept that applying a third-party mod to a game may change the content of that game.
The content was not in the game. There was no possible way for you to encounter that content in the game. You could only do so by changing the game.
If you didn't want to see bare breasts, and you never installed the Hot Coffee mod, you would never see any breasts, and the ESRB rating would be completely correct and you would be happy.
But apparently there are people out there who don't want to see bare breasts, then go download a mod that says it will show them breasts, apply it to the game, see breasts, and are offended.
Those people are insane.
Uhm, the Mod did not add the content like the mod you refer to in UT2004.
So what? In both cases you cannot see the content without a mod, and after applying a mod you can. The only difference is the size of the mod you have to apply, but the concept -- modifying the game -- is the same. The ESRB should not -- in fact cannot -- be responsible for modifications made to a game by users after it has been purchased.
Besides San Andreas could have been rated AO just on the basis that it has extended periods of violence which I might add are illegal kind of violence like shooting all the hookers in town or killing cops. This is different from a combat game where you choose a side to fight on.
A combat game like... CS? I'm pretty sure the Terrorist side's actions wouldn't be considered legal. Street Fighter? Street fighting is illegal, don't you know. I don't see why choosing a side makes a difference.
Well it doesn't make a difference, anyway, because your views on violence in GTA are not the issue. The discussion is about nudity that did not exist in the game Rockstar released and the ESRB rated. Then some idiot modifies the game to show nudity, and suddenly everyone thinks the rating should have been different because Rockstar should have realized that somebody might make a modification that shows nudity. Which is ridiculous.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with children seeing boobies. It's the fact that Rockstar didn't DECLARE there were boobies to the ESRB.
There were no boobies to declare.
There were no boobies until you applied a modification to the game downloaded off the internet.
At the point at which you are applying a modification to the game, does it matter if the mod is just unlocking previously innaccessible content on the disk, or if the mod contained the boobies itself? You're modifying the game from its original, boobless, presentation.
If there was an "Iced Tea" mod that put beastiality into the game, would it be Rockstar's fault for not notifying the ESRB that their game might, at some point in the future, depending on what internet modders do, contain beastiality?
The ESRB rating of the game GTA was 100% accurate, and was sufficient for any parent to make a fully informed decision. If that parent or their child then goes and modifies the game such that it shows boobs, that is their fault, not Rockstar's or the ESRB.
It wasn't an easter egg, it was disabled content. An easter egg is intended to be accessible from within the game, but just not in an obvious way. Disabled content is not intended to be accessible through any in-game means, but of course it is possible to change the game code to allow access. It's the difference between finding an egg hidden behind the couch, and finding an egg in a dumpster. The one behind the couche was put there on purpose. Nobody expected you to go rifling through the dumpster looking for eggs.
How could the ESRB have done a better job? There was no way to get at this content by playing the game. The only way to get at it is to get a mod for the game that unlocks it. Does the ESRB rate games based on every mod that exists, or may possibly exist in the future? Did they rate UT2004 only after it had been out for two years, and they had downloaded every mod for the game?
Maybe the ESRB has problems and needs to do a better job. Hot Coffee is a terrible example to try to prove it. The only thing Hot Coffee shows is that 1) a lot of people don't understand the difference between having something built into the game, and downloading a mod for a game and 2) maybe moddable games should carry an ESRB warning similar to the ones for online games, something like "Game experience may change if you deliberately go out on the internet, download a mod, and install it."
Or maybe something like: "ESRB warning: To the best of our knowledge, this game contains no boobies. If you don't want to see any boobies, then don't install any modifications that purport to show you boobies."
I understand the risks of going public, but I also look at Intel dumping billions of profit into fabs.
Yeah, Intel has unparalleled fab tech and fab capacity. I assure you they aren't paying for all their fabs in cash, though.
I just can't sit back and say, "It's the investor's fault AMD is hurting." AMD has been public for a long, long time. If the investors are such a risk maybe the should do some cost cutting and fund new fab capacity with profit rather than speculative public investor funds.
A new fab can easily cost $5 billion and takes years to build. You don't just "do some cost cutting" and find yourself with $5 billion in extra profits, at least not in time to build the fab so it is finished when you need it, or without cutting the R&D that you need so that you have good products that will sell well enough to need the extra capacity.
Also, my point is that AMD isn't really hurting. Their market share is capped by fab capacity at the moment, yes, but Fab 36 is nearly online because AMD went to investors to get the money to start building the new fab several years ago. They predicted back then that they would need the extra capacity now, and while it'd be nice if Fab 36 was producing wafers now instead of next year, they actually did a good job of anticipating the need and then executing on the building plan so that the window in which they could use more capacity but don't have it is relatively short. Besides, to make use of Fab 36 now it'd have to be tooled for 90nm then re-tooled for 65nm which would take a long time and a lot more money than just targetting Fab 36 for 65nm.
If you want to say that investor's caused this, then you are saying AMD "plays the market" by putting important eggs in the public's basket. Maybe AMD shouldn't be public anymore.
I assure you Intel does the same thing, and in fact any similar manufacturing company does too. And the point was that investors -- which doesn't necessarily mean holders of publicly traded stock, btw -- are responsible for a company not having enough capital to grow as they need to, because providing a company with capital needed to grow is what an investor is for. This is not what has happened to AMD, because they did get the investment money to build a new fab, so if I say that investors caused this as in AMD's current situation, that would be praise not blame.
On the other hand, YouTube is mostly non-copyrighted material.
Attack of the pedant: YouTube is mostly copyrighted (since in the U.S. everything is copyrighted automagically) material hosted and distributed with permission of the author (implied by them uploading it to YouTube). But I know what you meant, non-infringing material.
Since then, anytime the get a good product, they blow it on production, leaving Intel to fill the void they created.
There's a difference between a production problem and a capacity problem, though they both result in supply failing to meet demand. A production problem is when you theoretically could manufacture enough parts to satisfy demand, but your process, technology, or chip design is flawed and is not reliable enough to meet production goals. This is especially bad when you tell your customers that they can expect so many chips, and then you fail to deliver them. A capacity problem is when you couldn't possibly produce enough chips
AMD has had plenty of production problems in the past, when their market share was low enough they've had the fab capacity to produce enough chips, but they were simply unable to. When this happens, you have to fix the design, fix the process, tweak the technology parameters, whatever to correct the problem. While this has hurt AMD quite a bit at various times, they did recover, and it didn't fundamentally limit their marketshare.
Now, AMD has reached a point where they simply have a capacity problem. Their production process and yields are very good, but their market share is such that Fab 30 is physically incapable of producing enough chips to meet demand, even if it were working perfectly and every chip on every wafer was good. Their market share is now capped. When this happens, there's only one thing you can do: Build more capacity.
AMD hasn't had this kind of problem before. They would have loved to have this problem instead of the production problems they've had in the past.
It is where they have failed again and again and again. I can't believe they haven't learned yet.
Oh, but they have. In particular, they anticipated this problem years ago and started to build Fab 36, which is about to come on line right when their capacity issues are becoming a serious limiter to their growth. Fab 36 is going to mean a lot more capacity for AMD, and let them grow their marketshare by a lot. Now they may have production problems with the new fab, but once they get those worked out they won't be having any capacity problems for a while -- and if they do, they will giddily ply investors to help them build a new fab.
P.S. speaking of investors, the point kfg was trying to make is that a capacity problem can only be solved by increasing capacity, which requires investment in a new fab. If investors fail to invest in the extra capacity, and the company hence cannot meet demand and fails, then it is the investors who are responsible. Somewhat; after all it is the company's job to seek out investors to help them build a new fab.
It's really not that simple. The process size is usually given as the minimum transistor length. Other parameters (minimum metal trace width, minimum distance between active regions, etc) may not shrink by the exact same amount. So you can't just scale your 90nm design by 65/90 and expect it to pass the design rules. I'd say that 1.5 as many chips is a reasonable guess. If I wanted a better guess, I'd look up the die sizes of previous chips that made process transitions with a minimum number of architectural changes to get an idea what real scaling factors you can expect.
On the other hand, the smaller your chip the better wafer utilization you get because the square chips better fit into the edges of the round wafer. This isn't a huge effect, though, unless you're talking really huge chips vs really small ones.
The big deal is that AMD's 65nm process is also coming with 300mm wafers. That's 2.25x the number of die/wafer right there, plus a little bit from being able to again pack chips to the edges of the wafer better.
Fab 36 is going to mean a hell of a lot more capacity for AMD. They're probably estatic to be having this "problem" right now.
Did Intel switch to 65nm and 300mm sooner than AMD? Yes. Did they switch to copper and low-K dieelectric before AMD? No. Did their 90nm production even work quite right for Intel ever? Not sure. When the 90nm P4s used more power than their 130nm brethren you have to wonder.
I think Intel's 90nm process was working just fine such as it is. In my opinion the fact that the 90nm P4 burned more power than the 130nm P4 was due to two things:
First, the Prescott core that was released in 90nm had more pipe stages than the 130nm Northwood core, in particular more pipe stages operating at the double-speed ALU clock frequency, so this means many more transitions per cycle. Other architectural changes probably added to an increase in dynamic power.
Second was the elephant in the room that all silicon manufacturers were trying to ignore, but which suddenly started stampeding around crushing things in a non-ignorable fashion at 90nm: Leakage current. All transistors conduct a small amount of current even when switched off. The problem is that this current rises as the length of the transistor decreases. Everyone saw that leakage was becoming a greater proportion of the total power consumed, but weren't doing much about it. Apparently 90nm was some kind of tipping point, and suddenly leakage was burning 25-50% of the power in the chip and you couldn't do anything about it other than power the transistors down.
Combine these two things, and Prescott was a power monster. Other chips that have less of a problem with dynamic power were better able to handle the increase in static power.
In computer architecture there's an age-old debate about the "speed demon" vs the "brainiac" which has gone on forever with no obvious answer. Roughly speaking the P4 is a speed demon, K8 and P-D are brainiacs. While I could argue about architecture and why one is better than the other, the outcome in reality has been decided. It is interesting that in the end the Speed Demon lost, and power was what struck the killing blow.
Also, The AMD-ATI merger does not bode well for Linux users, given ATI's abysmal track record. I refuse to buy ATI products and am now avoiding AMD until I see whether or not ATI cleans up its act. (insert a rabid "fuck ATI" right about here)
Naively, since AMD, the larger company, bought ATI I would figure AMD's culture of openness would dominate. At least, I hope this is the case, because I'm sick of having only one choice for graphics cards (though I'm used to it; ever since 3dfx).
Anyway, it doesn't seem fair to refuse to buy AMD's processors (as opposed to graphics cards/chips) because of ATI's poor linux support when AMD has been a huge supporter of free software, in particular of gcc and to a lesser extent the Linux kernel.
Though I will still not buy AMD/ATI (or DAAMIT as the Inquirer calls it) graphics products until they do actually improve. And I will continue buying AMD processors until they start becoming more like ATI.
Nintendo is garnering a great deal of good will (though the one controller in the package is a little bit of a setback) while Sony continues to tick off its customers.
I hate to break it to you, but Sony's financial performance most likely has very little to do with customer ill-will. First, in 2005 no next-gen consoles were available so the PS2 was competing against its traditional foes the Xbox and GC. As of Q3 of 06 the 360 has been out for quite a while and the PS2 is at the end of its life, producing minimal income, and the PS3 isn't out yet. So their position in the home console market is at its weakest point while their R&D expenses are at their highest, but this is natural in the transition from one generation to another, something they certainly expected. Now on the portable front they have failed to do as much with the PSP as they had hoped, while the DS is doing very well. That's normal market competition, and it turns out the DS is the more compelling product for most people.
The things that make you and I hate Sony as a company, the lawsuits, the root kits, and so forth, have most likely resulted in minimal real impact to their bottom line. The Sony exec who said the rootkit was not a big deal because most people don't know what one is was actually right if you're talking in terms of corporate PR, which are the terms we're talking about here.
Exploding batteries, on the other hand, are something everyone understands, and had a direct impact on sony's bottom line.
Next quarter is when the PS3 begins to sell. We'll see then whether Sony's strategy pays off -- I'm guessing no, but I don't know. The point is that is when their opportunity for significant revenue will begin. In the meantime, looking at their financials in this quarter vs Q3-05 only reveals the difference in the game console market over that time, not a boycott movement against Sony.
Huh, that's a good idea to try. I always soak my beard before I'm shaving since we all know from our barbers that wet hair cuts easier, but I also use shaving cream. I don't know why, I thought it acted as a lubricant. Since I already soak my beard, would I get a better shave without shaving cream or would it make no difference (other than not having to use the cream)? Either way, the main issue is probably that I don't wait long enough for my beard to get soaked through. There's never enough time in the mornings...
I think it was sour grapes on Immersion's part to bring this topic up over and over again when they saw the additional $90m swimming away... You really think they care about the gamers?
Ha! No, of course not. The point is that I have no sympathy for Sony, because they are a terrible abuser of IP laws themselves. They got in a fight with another big IP asshole, Immersion, and lost. Now they pretend as if they never wanted to have rumble anyway.
Assholes they may be, I don't think "sour grapes" applies to Immersion. I haven't heard them claim that they didn't really want Sony's money. "Sour grapes" doesn't just mean "sore loser".
I'm no Sony apologist. They have made a lot of crappy choices and Ken "Crazyman" Kuaragi has spewed enough bullshit to make me think really hard about ever buying the PS3, but I think it's right to show Immersion the finger.
They tried to show Immersion the finger in court, and they lost. Now they aren't so much showing anyone the finger as crying and going home and pretending they never wanted to play ball anyway. Too bad Sony hadn't lobbied for patent law reform that might have assisted them in their court battle. Why didn't they lobby for it? Because they benefit from patent laws themselves and don't want them reformed. So when the system that they support bites them in the ass, I call that poetic justice.
Of course it was stupid to remove rumble, and of course it wasn't necessary to support the motion sensing. Sony's just trying to make the best of bad deal. The rumble patent is probably the one part of the PS3 development/marketing on which I actually sympathize with them. The patent was total crap. Way to broad, way too obvious. We should be thanking Sony for trying to fight patent, rather than rewarding Immersion through settling.
Yeah, this is obviously just a case of sour grapes when they were denied the use of rumble due to losing the lawsuit. Their post-facto justifications ring terribly hollow as a result. It's really just spin control. If they didn't make rumble sound like a non-feature, then people might think the other consoles were better for including rumble, obviously not what Sony wants. They can't just come out and say what is obviously the truth: "We would have loved to include rumble instead of this sixaxis BS, but we lost a patent infringement lawsuit so we can't." The truth hurts when you're in marketing.
While the patent sucks, I still don't feel sorry for Sony. You can't be such a strong proponent of Intellectual Property laws (I'm deliberately using the over-general term that companies like Sony made popular) without expecting to get bitten by them yourself when you infringe someone else's IP. Is the patent silly? Yes. Are a thousand pieces of IP produced by Sony equally silly, and equally likely to get you sued if you violate them? Yes. I feel no more sorry for Sony than I feel sorry for a fantasy novel villain who is dragged down into the abyss by the horrible demon they themselves summoned.
I won't feel sorry for Sony until they recognize the harm the current state of IP law is doing and start speaking out against it. Not likely to happen for quite a while, and frankly I hope this happens to Sony again, and again, and again, and to any other strong-IP proponent, until they either wake up and realize these laws are damaging the industry or go bankrupt in their obstinance.
I'm just wondering why they think Talladega Nights is a good showpiece for Blu-Ray technology. King Kong makes sense as the visuals are a big part of the movie. But a comedy? I'm not getting the logic.