Death knell for game modders?

[SoupDragon]

Is the modding of games about to become more than a minor infringement of copyright?

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,68284,00.html

[Momaw]

I don't see how it can be sanely argued that Take Two was responsible for shipping sex content. They intentionally disabled it in their shipping product. A modder finding and unlocking that content is, in no way, shape or form, Take Two's fault. In order to access this material, an end user must specifically download and install a mod, a non-standard peice of software that is unsupported and not condoned by the game's original maker. I don't see how it can be anything but identical to a user modding porn into any other game, or an end-user deciding to download same porn on their own dime. In other words, an expression of free speech.

Now, whether corporate overreaction and frivolous lawsuits will result in the death of modding... No. I very much doubt it. There are many games which welcome, nay, even support mod development. From a developer's standpoint, mods are great! You get people working to extend the content and marketable of your game, and you don't even have to pay them anything. That this particular case is turning out so poorly is a function of the series' traditionally edgy image. When you always toe the line, the consequences are a lot more immediate and serious when you finally cross it. The media and politicians have been looking for a solid handle to grab GTA by for a long time. This whole frenzy is about Take Two and GTA, not about modding.

[hoom]

Much as I disagree with Take Two getting in trouble, the content was made by them & is on the disk distributed to customers.
They really should have removed it from the disk entirely.

[Parias]

But Momaw's above point does stand - you do need to modify the game using external, unsupported, third-party utilities in order to actually access this content, and you need to basically know exactly what you are doing; there is no way to just "accidentally" trigger the content.

[Red_Hex]

buried in the homeworld game files, is a skin for the escape ship from alien/aliens - the one ripley uses from the nostromo.

it isnt used in the game, it has no model, its just a curio. there used to be mods that provided a model and enabled it. by these standards, relic were guilty of copyright infringement.

that whole gta affair is ridiculous. the content was disabled, it was no more a part of the game than any content that has to be added.

[Stephen Robertson]

What about the Voyager model in Independence War?

[river]

I see it not so much as modding content as accessing content already there.

I think gta:sa is a great game--the problem is that they misrepresented what was on the cd when it was submitted to the esrb. I see the mini-game as fully coded easter egg by the devs... and I don't see those who accessed it as modders. They didn't really add or alter the content of the original game; but I have no doubt that 'hot coffee' is here to stay and that someone will quickly find a way to add it into the new 'cleaned up' version of gta:sa that's going to be released.

Have you modded a game if the content you add is coded, textured, and modelled by the original developers?

-river

[Red_Hex]

of course you have. youve modified the game from what the unmodified game would feature. you can play san andreas off the shelf all day long and not get any 'hot coffee'. to get it, you have to modify the game.

the esrb rates the game, surely. what if the latest carebears simulator contained the word '****' commented out of an .ini file by the devs in a code description? if the esrb finds that does carebears get rated mature?

[river]

I'll rephrase: Are you a modder if the content you add is coded, textured, and modelled by the original developers?

I"m not sure how serious you are with the carebear thing, but my understanding is that it falls on the devs to inform the esrb of any content that might affect the game's rating.

The rating system is going to be subjective (whether for movies, books, or games). But are you really comparing a single profanity with a full featured mini-game? Hey, we're not talking about some artist slipping a couple of suggestive frames into a Disney movie.

Still, I wasn't trying to argue the value or need for the esrb. I just take exception to the view that the devs are not responsible for content that they created, and shipped. They may have "intentionally disabled it", but I think they intentionally left it on the product that they shipped, and intentionally neglected informing the esrb to avoid a more restrictive rating.

I'll even give a silly analogy: you, the author, add a couple of pages of sexual content to a book, but you have the book binders seal the edges of the pages. If someone looks real hard, they can see that there is something between the pages, and if they cut the edges real carefully they can gain full access to the sweetness.

Pity the poor author, getting held responsible for his actions.

-river

(edited for sloppiness)

[Red_Hex]

except the book analogy wouldnt ever happen. theres a difference between physically hiding something in a product, and... not physically, digitally, whatever. and yes, you are still a modder. you still have to modify the game to get at it. when i messed with iw2's flux.ini system damage variables to actually enable systems being damaged, i modded iw2. and all i did was change a few numbers.

i guess what it comes down to is intent. did rockstar leave the content data but disabled it deliberately so the community could find it, or was it merely a part of the game coded and then discarded later in development, without being actually deleted, little realising the ramifications of their oversight/laziness?

you believe the former. i dont know.

[river]

Agreed. And I admit I can't really know rockstar's intent; but they've always struck me as too sharp to--uh oh, I think I'm slipping into 'last word' mode.... :rolleyes:

Agreed.

-river

[hoom]

I think the book analogy is probably pretty close though I do concede the book would require intent while it could be argued that Rockstar only accidentally left the content there.

What if the content was not on the GTA disk but the latest Care Bear simulator?
Yup, kiddies can & do download a mod that enables content created by the developers which involves interacting with Care Bears in various digital sex acts.
Just an innocent, careless oversight or a good reason to have the rating increased/recall of product?

I have issues with the idea that running around shooting people dead, stealing cars, drug dealing etc is 'less offensive/mature' than sex but the point is clear to me.

[AR81]

Quite a crazy world. So it seems that if you expose what a developer did, you are to be blamed.

[hoom]

Well no, (Unless I'm missing something which is quite possible) its the developer getting in trouble for something they did but decided not to include as it would increase the rating but then the content was not removed from the disk & someone found a way to reenable it.