BREAKING: Rockstar Confirms Manhunt 2 PSP Hack
Since late yesterday GamePolitics has been following a rumor that hackers had discovered a means to reveal the original, unedited content of Manhunt 2.
Now we’ve had confirmation from a Take Two representative that it’s not a rumor.
It’s true.
In other words, the apparent hack made visible some - but apparently far from all - of the content found in the version of the game rated “Adults Only” by the ESRB.
Here is the statement just sent to GamePolitics:
Multiple edits were made to revise Manhunt 2 for its M-rated version.
Hackers apparently have altered one of those edits to produce an illegally modified version of the game that can only be played on an unauthorized, modified PlayStation Portable handheld system.
All of the game material, and especially these specific edits, was submitted to and reviewed by the ESRB in accordance with requirements regarding disclosure that were enacted two years ago and any contrary suggestion is inaccurate and irresponsible.
Take-Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick said, “I stand behind the game and the ESRB ratings process. It is unfortunately the case that no one in the entertainment software industry is immune from hacking. We hope that consumers will not engage in hacking or download illegally modified copies of our games. We encourage them to enjoy our games as they are meant to be played. We would also like to emphasize that Manhunt 2 is intended for an audience aged 17 and above.”
While not of Hot Coffee caliber, the news will provide fuel for critics of Rockstar, Take Two and the ESRB.
It is not clear whether further hacker activity could reveal additional Manhunt 2 edits, but attempts will certainly be made. Take Two’s spokesman could not speculate as to whether hackers might be able to unlock AO content on the PS2 or Wii versions of the game.
On the plus side, new Take Two chairman Strauss Zelnick came clean immediately on the hack. As much as anything, it was Take Two’s inept and deceptive handling of the 2005 Hot Coffee affair which allowed it to swirl out of control.
GP: I want to make clear that, according to Take Two, the hack does not reveal the entire AO-rated version of the game, only a portion thereof.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Ok, let’s get over the hatred of me. This is a huge news item, whether you agree with me or not. The ESRB made it REALLY clear that if a developer left code in a game that could be unlocked, then that would be a huge violation of ESRB rules.
If the ESRB allowed any code to be left in which could be unlocked, then the ESRB is a goner. That is not an exaggeration. Dennis, you know how serious this is.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Bravo Rockstar.
You know, if they’re not going to learn from their past mistakes, then I’m not going to have any sympathy for them when Jack refuses to shut up.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Honestly, they had to know this would happen asap after release if the changes were this simple to remove. That and I remember some discussion from an earlier date where another group believed that this would happen too. So let the watchgroups freak-outs begin. But on the other hand, he’s right…no one is really safe from someone hacking or trying to change the product. I’ve seen it happen from everything from Super Mario Brothers all the way up to this, Grand Theft Auto, and Oblivion. The hacking in itself is nothing but a game and a challenge to some people.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
REMEMBER JACK:
This is for the PSP. That means it’s a handheld. Only KIDS play handhelds. Be sure to remember that when you release your million press releases.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Awesome.
At this rate, with this kind of clean behaviour, I might just go back to buying their games.
Unfortunately they have some work to do in terms of credibility. The first thing that popped into my head was “Yah, right… ” because I still consider Hot Coffee to be dirty pool on their part, but I’m willing to put a little faith into them this time and give them the benefit of the doubt.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
At least they were honest this time. But you know that this is going to be a soapbox for that Thompson boy. The thing is though, that the hack is only to get rid of the color distortions and such, so it’s not like Hot Coffee which was left out of the game but still on the disc…this is actually in the game, hackers just alter it.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Rockstar really should learn from past mistakes…
November 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
@ PlayItBogart
“You know, if they’re not going to learn from their past mistakes, then I’m not going to have any sympathy for them when Jack refuses to shut up.”
I’m gonna have to agree with you, as much as I hate Thompson, I really don’t feel sorry for Rockstar.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Well handled. Well done.
Of course, the “testicle kill” animation will not appear in the hacked game because it was most likely completely removed from the code.
Andrew Eisen
November 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
this is going to be so huge when the cheat code for it comes out on the PS2 version.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
As I stated in an earlier thread when the hack was first discovered, this is vastly different from hot coffee. The hack doesn’t allow access to a part of the game that was never intended to be in the game at all, but REMOVING a part of the game that WAS intended to be there.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Now my programming abilities are limited to a class in college where we delved into the principles of programming by using Visual Basic…but what are the odds that if I cracked open Manhunt 2 for PS2/Wii, I’d find comments among the lines of code to the line of “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON’T DELETE THIS OR THE ESRB WILL KILL US”?
November 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hmm. Is Rockstar possibly baiting Jack Thompson to violate his out of court settlement here?
November 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
@Andrew Eisen
You really want to start making bets on that? Sad thing about all this is it could still backfire. Screaming hacks is like throwing the studies on the brain at the general public/watchdog groups, they’ll never get it.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
@MaskedPixelante
It already has been done on PS2. But the same way, thus requiring an illegally modded system. Which, if you’re system is illegally modded, you’d be playing the leaked, uncut version. So why did the hackers bother? I have no clue.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
@PlayItBogart
You wouldn’t be able to see the lines of code. The code is compiled into an executable that cannot be read. Well… that’s not entirely true, SOMEONE might be able to read it, but it wouldn’t be in english and comments aren’t included (the compiler specifically excludes comments at compile time).
November 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Rockstar didn’t do anything wrong here. Anyone (with the right skills) can edit a game.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
This all goes back to how programming works. It is much easier to go through and REM a line then it is to delete it and find out later you need the line for something else. This isn’t something new in programming…and it doesn’t surprise me one bit. I am glad though that Zelnick is standing up and doing the right thing.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
The above is the same doublespeak we got from T2 with Hot Coffee. Then they blamed the mod community. These idiots left the edits in, and they were told by the ESRB NEVER TO DO THAT AGAIN! Well, they’ve done it again, so Dennis, this is MUCH worse. The didn’t heed the FTC’s warning to nail their butts if they ever did it again.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
We encourage them to enjoy our games as they are meant to be played
That is exactly what the hackers are trying to do…
November 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
@vellocet
It’s an ini file, and it DOES have comments. Just not that one.
I found this amusing though.
“# NOTE: do not add any comments here. the RN ini file reading
# system is very easy to break.”
November 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Yep, ol’ Jack will be jumping all over this one. Most likely with “This proves the ESRB is a sham!”
November 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
@PlayItBogart
I’m sorry… what you said may be entirely possible. The effect that blurs the screen is switched on in a config file. Those are typically in english and are easily editable.
If I am correct, it should not be hard to create a gameshark code to disable it. Likely the difference between the M version and AO version is that a variable (probably labelled MRatedVersion or something like that) is set to true.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Kudos to Take Two for disclosing this as fast as possible. Most of the flack (from the game industry anyway) came from Take Two and Rockstar dicking around and pretending it hadn’t happened, it wasn’t their code/content, etc.
The disclosure to the ESRB was most interesting actually. So the ESRB can’t slap them with any fines for “non-disclosure” over this…
November 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Uh oh…
If you’re not interested in the specifics of how this hack works, please stop reading now:
I was a bit interested in how this is really done… so I went to find out… there’s a config file called “GLVLSET.INI” in the game that configures a level before it starts. In it, there are 3 lines of code (the first one is a description of what the next three lines do):
# [GK] execution colour ramp options: flash fadein (sec), flash duration (sec), flash fadeout time (sec)
EXECUTION_COLRAMP_TEXTURE FE_execramps
EXECUTION_COLRAMP_FLASH_TIMES 0.25, 0.6, 0.3
EXECUTION_COLRAMP_FADE_TIME 5.0
All you have to do is delete these lines and resave the GLVLSET.INI. Basically you’ve set those three variables to return null or to have no flash times.
If this is the same way it’s done in the PS2 version, there will be a gameshark code out any moment now.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Oh well, just wait for JT I suppose. It’s not like its really that big a deal anyways. I mean come on, its the PSP people!
November 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
@Tenshigami
Sorry, you’re right. I was writing my retraction while you posted yours
November 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
From the videos I’ve seen, the “blurring” effects actually aren’t as severe as they were made out to be. The action is still pretty clear, and pretty disturbing.
Shame that as a *game* it still seems to have all the charm of a snuff film. The character animation is still clumsy and stiff, and in terms of polygons, textures, and lighting, it looks no better than the badly aging GTA VC/SA engine. In fact, the cinematic effects make it look better by at least adding a touch of style to some otherwise pretty drab presentation.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
They shouldn’t really have to be responsible for disclosing information about some nonrelated entities’ hacks, though. This press statement should only say “all content that is on this disc has been made formally known to the ESRB and if anyone surpasses our editing system it is not our fault”.
As far as “not being able to access all of it” I believe they mean things actually excised from the disc and not just edited, which was what got them in trouble with Hot Coffee (not excising the content and only editing it).
November 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Sad. A game that was probably going to suck in sales anyways is now going to get a nice boost just because of all the attention drawn to it. Manhunt 1 wasn’t even good, IMO.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Let it be known that I LOVE Rockstar, however I found this line to be humorous:
We encourage them to enjoy our games as they are meant to be played.
Well, that’s why they(the hackers) are trying to bypass the censorship you guys put on the game. Basically, they bought the game and the PSP, so they are free to do with it what they want. If they choose to void the PSP warranty, it’s their choice. Hacking a game is not the same as downloading a game.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
@JT
The above is the same doublespeak we got from T2 with Hot Coffee.
No it isn’t you idiot. Learn your history, duh.
T2 and Rockstar initially denied that Hot Coffee was present at all, and blamed hackers for creating the mini-game. Only later did they admit it was there, but then blamed the hackers for unlocking it.
God damn are you dense sometimes.
These idiots left the edits in, and they were told by the ESRB NEVER TO DO THAT AGAIN!
Again, you are so thick I’m not surprised you failed your bar exam first try.
The ESRB told them to never again leave the edits in AND NOT TELL THE ESRB ABOUT IT. If they left it in, but disclosed it in the ESRB application, then it was ok. So they are 100% in compliance with ESRB rules.
The didn’t heed the FTC’s warning to nail their butts if they ever did it again.
And again you fail. The FTC warned them to never include content AND NOT TELL THE ESRB ABOUT IT. But they informed the ESRB, so they are 100% in compliance with the FTC’s demands.
Jeeze Louise Jack, if you’re going to quote history, get it right. You aren’t the Ministry of Truth here, you can’t go back and alter the records of what happened…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I was going to put up a preemptive comment for when the Miami soon-to-be-ex-lawyer would post, but I think I’ll just sit back this time. I’ll just say that this only applies to hacked PSP users, and it still doesn’t make the game buyable by children, so the hack isn’t harming them.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
This is the work of a hacker. The ESRB should NEVER be held accountable for this, but we all know the watchdog groups and Jack Thompson will fry all of them. I feel sorry for the ESRB because some sick and twisted hacker just had to see the sick action he/she wanted to see.
Kudos to Zelnick for his way of handling this
November 1st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Thanks for clearing that up, vellocet. It’s good to see how it works. That whole thing just proves Jackie-boy wrong again.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
At least this time they’re not trying to cover it up first.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
@Jabrwock
This is still going to be bad. The problem is that the general public doesn’t understand technology. To them it will be something easily removed that circumvents the ESRB rating.
It will invalidate the ESRB rating (in the same way that Hot Coffee did). Make them look REALLY bad. And give JT and the others exactly the ammunition they need.
It’s really unfortunately that JT and the rest of the population doesn’t understand the technology. Defending this will be very difficult, especially when people won’t/are unable to grasp/don’t want to learn the information required to know why it shouldn’t be an issue.
There’s really nothing that Rockstar could have done this time around (I don’t think they did anything wrong). But the environment that was created by Hot Coffee (which was the fault of Rockstar AND the ESRB) makes this time around an incredibly volatile situation.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
JT, this requires people to hack their system, and the game. This could be done to ANY game. How about the Punisher game? It had the gore scenes changed to black and white to get an M rating, but then there were hacks to see the scenes in full colour. Where were you then asshole?
You will be buried by your personal vendetta with TT. It is obvious you hae an obsession, and use selective targeting in order to get what you want.
The developer of the game cannot control what people do to the game once it has been released. I know you do not have an understanding of how code is written, or how it works, but any game released on the market can be hacked to achieve whatever the people doing the hacking desire.
In this case it involved deleting code. The code is there, and people are deleting it. No code was hidden, as was the case with Hot Coffee. Prepare for another failure if you choose to pursue this line of attack.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Ah, and magically his posts appear.
And once agian, his information is wrong. Oh well.
I’m done here; it’s old news now. Wake me up when the baseless lawsuits start flying.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Here’s what the ESRB actually said in July ‘05:
“Going forward, the ESRB will now require all game publishers to submit any pertinent content shipped in final product even if is not intended to ever be accessed during game play or remove it from the final disc.”
That doesn’t say unplayable code cannot exist, just that it must be disclosed. Furthermore, we’ve seen no evidence that any unplayable code (kill animations) have been unlock. Only the filter obscuring the kills has been disabled.
This is not in any way damaging to Take-Two or the ESRB. Both, from what we’ve seen so far, have done exactly what they’ve said they would.
Andrew Eisen
November 1st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
@vellocet
It will invalidate the ESRB rating (in the same way that Hot Coffee did).
Yeah, I know. Still, ironic that it’s true, yet Jack still has to lie when talking about it. He was handed a perfectly plain reason to bitch about the ESRB (that they would let the edits stand without demanding code removal as well), yet he still feels the need to lie through his teeth about it.
It’s like he’s a pathological liar or something. Maybe there’s a cream for that…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
You know. Given Jack’s commentary, I’d like to open a serious item of discussion. It’s old, but it apparently needs repeating here.
Should the ESRB or Rockstar be responsible for the actions of the mod community? Let’s face it. Without some serious digging into the code, no one should be able to access those scenes.
Of course, on the flip-side of the argument, You’d think Rockstar would’ve learned by now not to leave anything in. That lesson can be taken from Hot Coffee, or hell, Murphy’s law.
Responses anyone? Jack’s made his stance I think. (Rockstar should be held liable) Any other views? Seriously. This could turn entertaining.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
@Jack
The ESRB made it REALLY clear that if a developer left code in a game that could be unlocked, then that would be a huge violation of ESRB rules.
Do you ever actually tell the truth about things other people have said? Or are you mentally incapable of honestly quoting someone?
The ESRB made it REALLY clear that if a developer left code in a game that could be unlocked, AND DIDN’T TELL THE ESRB ABOUT SAID CODE, then it would be a huge violate of ESRB rules.
TT disclosed everything. So you fail.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Oh. and sorry for the quick turnaround, but this is @ Jack Thompson:
Can the ESRB really be held responsible for what the publisher left in? They’re only informed of what the publisher tells them. They aren’t handed a print-out of the code or what alterations to it can do. They’re handed a video. True, Rockstar may be punished (see above debate question), but the ESRB hardly has a say, don’t you suppose?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
To clarify… the reason why I think Hot Coffee is still screwing up the industry is this.
Hot Coffee WAS the work of hackers, though not in the way that Rockstar said. If nobody had hacked it, there would have been no way to access the assets and code for the Hot Coffee mini-game. The BIG problem is that the ESRB reversed their rating and made it AO.
This set a precedent. Even if content cannot be access by normal play, it must still abide by the ESRB rating (i.e. even if it’s available by hack).
It is this precedent set by the ESRB that now opens the industry to attack.
I’ve been saying for years that the EULA needs to be amended to say that modification of content in anyway through unconventional methods be considered illegal.
We’re in a lot of trouble…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
John Bruce,
As has already been pointed out, you are overlooking the detailed FACTS as presented in the article:
“All of the game material, and especially these specific edits, was submitted to and reviewed by the ESRB in accordance with requirements regarding disclosure that were enacted two years ago and any contrary suggestion is inaccurate and irresponsible.”
“On the plus side, new Take Two chairman Strauss Zelnick came clean immediately on the hack. As much as anything, it was Take Two’s inept and deceptive handling of the 2005 Hot Coffee affair which allowed it to swirl out of control.”
Perhaps it would have been in YOUR best interest (believe it or not) for the ESRB to have responded to this situation first. Apparently, T2/R* DID reveal the edits (though, one wonders if they revealed them as having “hidden” the content or “deleted” the content). If they lied to the ESRB as to the manner of edits, then that’s another story. It may fall closer to the “Hot Coffee” situation. But, if they told the truth, and the ESRB followed a path other than what you claim they did, then the fault may fall on the ESRB. Then again, they may have told the ESRB the WHOLE Truth, and the ESRB did not make demands as you suggest, meaning YOU are the liar and deceiver. Time will tell.
And, certainly, T2 is apparently handling the situation Publically far differently than the “Hot Coffee” incident.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
November 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oops. But anyone who manages to unlock any of the edits will have to break the law to do that right? So its a crime right? So should Take Two be blamed for people breaking the law? Aaaah, crap. Here we go again………
November 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
John Bruce,
OH, and you have to remember that there were TWO incidents in the issue of “Hot Coffee”. There was the unlocking of existing code by hackers that unlocked SOFTCORE adult content. Then, there was the mod community who altered, in one fashion or another, the code so that what was displayed wasn’t even meant to be displayed in even the original version of GTA: SA. Combining the two situations to confuse that issue doesn’t help your argument either.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Jabrwock,
Thanks for the clarification about what the ESRB actually did say.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
@AgnostoTheo
The problem is that the portion of the game that was left in NEEDS to be left in.
Here’s an analogy. Let’s say there was a movie that had nudity in it, and the producers decided to remove the nudity by putting black bars over it… Now, the actors are still there, just with black bars. The blurring in Manhunt 2 is equivalent to black bars. If someone were to remove the black bars, the underlying nudity is still there… but in order to remove THAT you’d have to remove the actors, and then you wouldn’t have a movie anymore.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I am glad to see that Take Two fessed up the Same day the Mod was found. I am also glad to see that Take Two disclosed this possibility to the ESRB when seeking a rating.
Despite what Jack Thompson says, Take Two did not violate any ESRB or FTC rules or rulings. They played by the rules and they are not trying to hide this like they did with Hot Coffee.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Lemme chew on this for a second. Seems like there are two separate issues. Correct me if I’m wrong.
1 - Basically concerns the theory that Rockstar didn’t necessarily remove offensive sections of the code; they just added addt’l code to give us “blurry-cam” moments that I guess, somehow make violence more acceptable to conservatives. The hack, theorhetically, removes the blurry cam code.
While I would call this lazy programming, I can see why they did it. They were likely trying for a halloween launch, and let’s face it, coding in distort-o-vision is easier and faster then having the concepts guys dream up new ideas for the sequence and then ordering your code jockeys to get it done from the ground up. Not to mention any extra work the modelers had to do.
The second issue seems to revolve around Jack’s assertion that the the ESRB is somehow negligent for allowing this. Again.
“If the ESRB allowed any code to be left in which could be unlocked, then the ESRB is a goner.”
(Sigh). Jack. Do you have any idea how incredibly unenforceable that is? Didn’t I see an interview with Pat Vance somewhere where she said she has 3 or 4 full time rate-ers. Let me get this straight. You want 3 or 4 people to break down the game code line by line and guarantee that there’s no hidden gotchas? Who’s to say these raters even could understand the code?? When they couldn’t even play through the game?
Now, as much as I hate to admit it, I may actually defend Jack now, because he might actually have a point. I shall endeavor to phrase what I’m thinking without the usual rhetoric.
1. If the ESRB has policies that are unenforceable (like guaranteeing no hidden code), then the system is broken and needs to be rethought.
2. If the ESRB vouches to the public things that it couldn’t possibly know, (like no hidden code), then the system is broken.
3. If the devs are actively trying to sneak code past the ESRB, then again, perhaps the system is broken.
I, for one, will be interested to see Pat Vance’s reaction: seems to me like she’s shown considerable diplomatic skill in the past, and I will be curious to see how she addresses this when the hysterical uptight conservatives come a callin’
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
@JT
The content is there, but it is inaccessible without modification. If I turn my toaster into a laser gun and hurt someone with it, it is not the fault of the toaster manufacturer - I’m the one that made the modification. If some lowly theater employee modifies a movie from the original format by adding porn before showing it, it is not the fault of the production company.
Again, this is a game intended for mature audiences only - it says as much on the box. Further, no studies show causation between game violence and real life violence - even the studies you site say there is no causal link (if you read the whole thing and don’t just cherry pick your quotes, that is), and any increase in aggression lasts only a few minutes, much the same as a rousing game of football or basketball.
Also, many of those studies done, particularly the earlier ones, are fundamentally flawed. If you are playing a game in a lab while a bunch of people are watching, then you’re not playing for pleasure, you’re *performing*. If they want a proper study done on the effects of gaming, then they should perform those tests in the gamer’s native environment.
You lose, Jack.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I can’t believe i’m typing this….
Jack has an actual valid point.
This is potentially huge.
Wether R* violated the ESRB’s requirements or the FTC’s is irrelevant. The fact is they left material in that is unlockable in a game they KNEW would be controversial, material they “removed” to get the game rated at a level that they could actually sell.
This is, quite frankly, a STUPID move. I mean, what’s thier next trick? Wearing lifelike deer costumes for the next hunting season?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
@JT
Oh yeah, this same logic applies with the Sims modifications, too - another one you were totally off the mark on.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
@jack thompson, attorney
Considering you have to:
a) have a specially-modified PSP that Sony has been strongly against for quite some time now (and have done virtually everything in their power to not permit), then
b) actually modify the data directly on the disk itself, which requires a bit of hardware to make new UMD disks, and to copy it to a system where you can make the changes, then that ends with
c) this isn’t the “mod community” here, nor is it by any stretch of the imagination considered “accessible” except for the most determined of people, with the right equipment, and the know-how to accomplish this.
Your statements are gross over-generalizations of terminology, which basically leads to you are arguing on the grounds of semantics, not a very sturdy or stable basis for your claims. But since when did you care about that?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
@JT
I will personally pay you $10000 if the ESRB is shut down over this.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Yup. I knew this was going to happen. *sigh*
This is one of the reasons I was against this game in the first place. I knew that Rockstar would pull something like this again. All they seem to care about is controversy, no matter how much their stupidity hurts the industry as a whole.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Thompson,
thank you for posting in a civil tone, keep it up. aside from that, i disagree with about half your statements.
i do agree that Rockstar did something stupid and will now pay the piper. but they disclosed to the ESRB the hack as soon as they became aware of it, which means the ESRB is not at fault, just R*.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“If the ESRB allowed any code to be left in which could be unlocked, then the ESRB is a goner”
I’d like to see where is says that code cannot be left in which could be unlocked. This is IMPOSSIBLE. What the heck does “unlocked” mean? The “unlocking” of code is merely changing variables in memory. Which… at it’s core is what a computer program is. If you have code that cannot be “unlocked”, you would have non functioning piece of software.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
This kind of a “modification” was like the modifications I used to do to adventure games where I rewrote the dialog of the game entirely to be extremely satirical and sarcastic. Is it the fault of the game developer for what I did to the game? Nope.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Now watch this blow over because it’s only unlocked violence, and not unlocked sexuality. Remember, this is America.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I’m also rather surprised Thompson didn’t add “FIRST POAST” to the end of his comment.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
@Scott
Wether R* violated the ESRB’s requirements or the FTC’s is irrelevant.
That’s the thing. Jack gets handed a perfectly good issue to be mad about (the ESRB allowing the edits to proceed knowing they could potentially be hacked), and what does he do with that? Run with it?
Nope. He lies through his teeth about stuff that never happened.
I mean that’s like Fox News getting ready to run the story on Bill Clinton’s blowjob, and just because they can’t help it, throw in a claim that he bit a baby’s head off. Why? Why bother? Was it not scandalous enough?
Jack’s got a psychological problem alright. Not that he’s paranoid, or obsessed, but that he’s a pathological liar. Even about stuff that legitimately supports his claim.
He’s so used to lying through his teeth, he couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it.
—
Now, on to the ESRB issue. My guess is that the ESRB ok’d the “M” because certain scenes were deleted altogether, and other scenes were made inaccessible enough that the majority of players would no longer see them as they were in the original.
So it falls down to a judgment call people might disagree with, rather than a call based on false information.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
The shit is going to hit the fan when the PS2 hack comes out (and after analyzing the hack - is most definitely will).
This will NOT be confined to the PSP.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
The only thing they unlocked was to take a layer off of the effects. In order to make that whole scene, they would HAVE to start with uncut material anyways. Just like making changes with filters in Photoshop, you need to start with the original picture before applying anything. So if I “reverse edit” a photo, that’s nobody’s fault but my own. So why in the heck are they blaming R* for this anyways? At least they are being open about it happening and working towards a resolution.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
It’s good to see that at least T2 has learned something from their last issue. Be that as it may, Joe Sixpack down the street isn’t going to care about the ESRB rules and regs. He’s going to care about what talking heads are going to spout about this. Heads like Mr. Thompson and his ilk will milk this for all it’s worth, even though in the end, T2 has done nothing wrong. They played by the rules.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Way to go Rockstar. The one game is was critical that you didn’t leave any backdoors into, particularly after Hot Coffee and you leave them wide open, proving once again that half the time its your own stupidity that gets yourself and the industry the bad rap it has. I don’t think the original game should have had to be censored in the first place but for the love of everything, when you’re going to agree to modify it to comply with the rating, don’t make the same stupid mistake you made before and leave an easily discoverable backdoor int hat can enable people to access content beyond the rating. Bravo indeed! It’s getting harder and harder to stand behind these people.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
@Unaffiliated anonymous
Now watch this blow over because it’s only unlocked violence, and not unlocked sexuality. Remember, this is America.
True. It won’t cause as big a stink as Hot Coffee, no matter how much JT would pretend it will.
All this hack does is make it so that it doesn’t flash crazy lights when you stab someone, or stick a machete in their head. You still see the action, but it’s garbled.
That was Kotaku’s beef. That it didn’t really “obscure” the killing, it just made it annoying instead.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Thats fucking it. Jack, take your head out of your ass so you can listen to something but the shit you keep coming up with.
Due to people like you screaming bloody murder because of this game, they were forced to make changes, of which even YOU denied happened. However, the modding community is vast. Very vast. People with all sorts of skills and knowledge exist. Hell, if they found a way to unlock something that was originally locked, wow. Great. But lets look at your fucked up logic here.
~~~~~
The Truth:
Manhunt 2 is released without any of this content readily available. The ESRB more than likely knows that these things can be locked out, and were. At the time of the second rating, the content was locked without possibility of playing said AO rated parts. The general populus is unable to play the parts that were locked. R* saves face, and some money and time, and releases on Halloween. After release, modders instantly shoot onto the game to attempt to unlock certain parts, and find a way to do so, using a modded PSP. Modifying a PSP is not authorized in any way, so R* and the ESRB normally don’t worry about that (that would be like Ford worrying about people using their cars to kill people…its not something allowed so they don’t worry about that). Modding a PSP takes alot of time, patience, and luck in most cases. Many under the age of 18 can’t even comprehend how to do this. As well, R* does admit the parts were locked out but cannot be found in any conventional method. R* makes mention that the game is not meant for children at all, and even urges paren’ts not to buy the game for their kids.
~~~~
Now, your fucked up logic and way of thinking:
Manhunt 2 is being released to market towards children and teach them how to kill people through use of this “murder simulator”. Rockstar’s main goal is to teach those at a young age exactly how to go about killing in violent ways even though the box clearly states the game is intended for mature audiences only. Rockstar never edited the game out, but instead had the ESRB lower its rating because thats the evil way the game industry works. But now that proof has came out that it WAS edited, even though its extremely difficult for the unlocked version to fall into the hands of children, its all done on purpose, with the thought in mind that children know exactly how to mod a psp, then get the psp version and play it. Therefore, the murder simulator still exists to train these children.
~~~~~
Jack, I used to laugh so much when I was writing your chapter for the book “Blame the Game”. Now you just disgust me. You talk about how you don’t want children to get ahold of these games, and that you aren’t for censorship (your email is amendmentone@wherever.com for christ’s sake!) yet you continue to show up on here and throw things into the faces of those that aren’t even children. You talk about your “victories” and how you have “won”? You walk around in a scared world, a false prophet trying to keep your liar’s tongue as high as it can be.
I hope, for your sake, when you die, God invites you to play Halo 3 with him, or see this sick kill he got in Manhunt 2. Because then you can blame things like…Katrina…on him playing violent games.
I’m disgusted, and you should be ashamed, Jack. And by the way, if you want a debate over any of this, I’ll not only stand up any time and any place, I’ll finish it off with handing you a copy of the book, signed, and a bookmark where your chapter is. And try to sue me for defamation too. If you do, I’d suggest getting a lawyer game and getting really good at it.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
$11,000 fine per copy of Manhunt 2 sold? Wow!
FTC Rules on Hot Coffee
In a long-awaited ruling, the Federal Trade Commission has found that the companies behind Grand Theft Auto San Andreas engaged in deceptive marketing practices.
The FTC issued a press release this morning, wrapping up a 10-month investigation into the so-called “Hot Coffee” scandal.
Although the FTC concluded that Take-Two and Rockstar used deceptive marketing practices by not revealing that hidden sex animations were on the GTA San Andreas disc, the proposed penalty was quite moderate, at least in economic terms. The ruling is a blow, however, to the public image of both companies as well as the video game industry.
Under terms of a proposed consent decree, the FTC will require Take-Two and Rockstar going forward to clearly disclose all content relevant to a game’s rating on its packaging. The companies must also set up a content review system to spare the gaming public additional servings of Hot Coffee. Finally, the companies agreed that they would be subject to fines of up to $11,000 per game sold if they commit such violations in the future.
Essentially, the FTC is saying, “Don’t do it again.”
November 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Oy.
Talk about a no-win situation.
They couldn’t make a public statement saying “here’s our M-rated game, but please don’t do -this-, as that will invalidate the ESRB rating by granting access to the AO-rated content”, because, well…yeah, don’t need to explain that.
They couldn’t literally REMOVE the AO content, assuming my understanding of the material is accurate. That is, the blur is not being applied to pre-rendered footage, but to certain portions of the live gameplay (if the blur is being applied to pre-rendered footage, then R* are indeed colossal jackasses and deserve any flack they get over this, but I don’t think that’s the case).
They couldn’t deny it, because 1. that’s not the right thing to do, and 2. look how well that turned out the last time.
Unfortunately, because of how it turned out last time, no one is going to bother listening to them, let alone taking the time to understand, that this is indeed a different situation.
Hot Coffee, they straight up failed. This time, while I really have very little sympathy for them on the whole for what they do to the industry’s image, I do feel that they more or less did what they were supposed to.
Also, this in no way invalidates the ESRB. If anything it just means that R* needs to be slapped upside the head a few times (harder than for HC).
November 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Damn right R* and the ESRB should be held responsible for my illegal action toward the game in order to get rid of the filter! Do you have any idea what they’ve made me put myself through voluntarily? Those bastards are going down. While we’re on the subject, I think they should be responsible for all illegal drugs I did before playing the game in order to make Manhunt 2 enjoyable
November 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
@Parallax Abstraction
This time it’s not really Rockstar’s fault. Hot Coffee was (they made numerous errors in the way they handled that). But there is NO way to make a game inherently unhackable.
Now there is the possibility that the ESRB lowered the rating for another reason OTHER than the blurring and flashing…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Oh goody. JT’s back and already saying the ESRB is at fault. What gets me is that JT expects the ESRB to try and hack the game in order to see if they can find banned content, or at least know about this option. I’m betting the ESRB had no clue that this content would be ‘hack’able.
Here’s another interesting thing I’ve noticed. JT hasn’t said one word yet about how ebil Rockstar is for having left this code in the game that could be hacked. Is this just because JT can’t say anything bad about Rockstar and T2 or their lawyers will hit him in the face with that lawsuit agreement where T2 said they wouldn’t throw JT to the wolves if he’d not stir up stuff about the way they do stuff?
You think T2 would make sure this wouldn’t happen, again. Seriously, if anyone’s to blame this time, T2 looks like the one folks should be complaining about and too. Leave the poor ESRB folks alone.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
who cares? how many kids are going own manhunt on psp, let alone have the skill to hack their psp and go through the code to unlock the material. only adults are going to be able to do this so why care?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
@ Parallax Abstraction
To be fair, this is different from Hot Coffee. This isn’t leaving material on the disk that could be accessed by hacking. This is hackers DISABLING code that IS supposed to be there. The content being modified by the code isn’t something that could just be up and deleted from the disk.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dear Moron Jabrwock:
Since you think I’m dense, try this out, Ace:
I said if they didn’t tell the ESRB then that’s bad. Why should we believe T2 on any of this, as to whom they told, etc. The ESRB has yet to talk.
As I earlier noted, if the ESRB did know about the leaving in of this stuff, then that’s even worse for the industry, because they’re the clowns that are supposed to make sure this can’t happen!
Don’t you get it? The watchdog may be complicit in this! The bottom line is that these games are going to have to be recalled. Just watch.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The reality is that Sony are as much to blame as R* is because they made the PSP, and it got hacked.
The real reality is that this is the work of outside coders who have changed the game.
It is like taking the safety off of a gun, shooting someone, then suing the gun maker because the safety was modified.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
You know what just occured to me? This is on the PSP. A 2.5 inch screen, right? OMFG you can see detail on a 2.5 inch screen?
Call me when the Wii/PS2 version is hacked.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
@ Jabrwock
November 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Sorry, hit the wrong button lol.
Anyways, Jabrwock, it could be the new PSP that you can display on a TV. Doesn’t look half bad when you play a game on there honestly.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
@Zen
Ah, that I didn’t know.
Still. Comparing the uncut to the cut version of kills, the flashy/patterned/colour thingie doesn’t do much.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“Don’t you get it? The watchdog may be complicit in this! The bottom line is that these games are going to have to be recalled. Just watch.” -Thompson
Want to put money on it?
Andrew Eisen
November 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I doubt we will see a recall.
Can someone explain to me why JT and other groups would want the ESRB shut down? I fail to see the benefit there.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
@ Jack Thompson
Or it could be that even with the disclosure of this method of obscuring the violence and the possible hack, the ESRB found that it was still well within the range of the M rating. Perhaps all Take Two had to do was remove the castration scene and it would have been fine and dandy for an M rating.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
@ Jabrwock
True, and even with the filters removed, it still won’t show the deaths there were just completely cut from the game anyways. So, it’s like they just “unscrambled” a bad HBO movie or something lol. Hey, I wonder if you could sue the cable company for a kid watching a bad movie using a descrambler…it wasn’t intended to be watched, took third party equipment, and breaking a few laws..but they are going after R* for basically the same thing.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
@ Zerodash
So they can take over as the ratings board and actually censure games they don’t like.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I know I’ve posted this before, but…
The problem with this patch is that there is really nothing else like it in any other medium. Hopefully Jack will read this and understand it a bit: The game shows a graphic scene and applies blurring and other camera effects so that you can’t see it clearly. The patch removes the effects.
Now, remember that Manhunt 2 is a game. The scenes in question aren’t video; they’re generated on the fly by the console. The game says, for instance, “place this character here, pose him like this, there’s a box over here, cover that in a cardboard-like texture, there’s a wall here, make it look like stone, now blur the whole image and add a little film grain.” It creates the scene literally pixel by pixel, polygon by polygon, composing and superimposing thousands of tiny elements to create a single image and then doing it thirty+ times a second. (Feel sorry for your poor GeForce now?)
A patch like this changes the way the game composes the image, in this case removing the blur command at the end. Rockstar did not “hide the uncensored version in the code.” The game necessarily has to create a crisp, visible image and then blur it; technology simply *won’t let it* generate a blurred image to begin with. Finding a way to remove the blur effect is largely the same as finding a way to *increase* it. You have to change the way the game actually generates a picture.
Re-read that last bit again and let it sink in. In order to change the picture displayed on your TV, you have to change the way the game generates the picture. You have to modify the game yourself.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
@ E. Zachary Knight
Which sadly would be ALL games if it was up to some of them. And they would still believe they were protecting everybody as they stripped us all of our rights to play and watch what we want, and to have the ability to decide what our children can play or watch as well.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
@Jack
I said if they didn’t tell the ESRB then that’s bad. Why should we believe T2 on any of this, as to whom they told, etc. The ESRB has yet to talk.
I’ll believe T2 before I believe a known liar like you. T2 learned their lesson, because they have millions of dollars in fines to worry about if they didn’t. You on the other hand, have no axe of financial penalty hovering over your head should you lie through your teeth.
Fine, we’ll have it your way. We’ll wait for the ESRB’s comment. But if they say the content was all disclosed, THEN can I call you Liar Liar Pants on Fire?
As I earlier noted, if the ESRB did know about the leaving in of this stuff, then that’s even worse for the industry, because they’re the clowns that are supposed to make sure this can’t happen!
If you read Kotaku’s review of the uncut/cut footage (and I know you CAN read), then the “cut” footage still shows the kills, still shows the blood, and still shows the death. So clearly the hack doesn’t change anything but the colour set.
You can’t honestly tell me that the ESRB would rate a scene like that AO if it’s red blood, but M if it’s reverse-chroma like a film negative?
Tells me that the ESRB had objections about completely unrelated content, and the negative flashy thingy was just a tonal adjustment.
Don’t you get it? The watchdog may be complicit in this! The bottom line is that these games are going to have to be recalled. Just watch.
Yes, it’s all a conspiracy. You found us out. How clever. I guess we’ll just have to gas you and send you to The Village now…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
@jack thompson, attorney
Given the nature and complexity of being able to remove the blur, please tell me, exactly, in your infinitesimal wisdom, how many children will be able to accomplish it? Gioven it requires specific hardware, and significant modifications to the system that invalidates the PSP in question, given the technical skill and know-how required to set it up… do *you* think that *you* can do this? How many children do you think will be able to?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
@ Zen
:( That would be a sad day indeed. The would have to rewrite that great song to be “The Day the Gaming Died”.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
If the issue is that they don’t want this game in the hands of children then why would this be an issue? I doubt teens and young children will be able to modify a video game on their own.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“How could we know hackers would look at the code and determine a simple hack would reveal previously censored content? It’s not like that’s ever happened before…oh wait. Crap.”
No sympathy this time. Not that they should have had to censor the game in the first place though.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
*yawn*
I think I’ll play some POSTAL 2 when I get home.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“Ok, let’s get over the hatred of me. This is a huge news item, whether you agree with me or not. The ESRB made it REALLY clear that if a developer left code in a game that could be unlocked, then that would be a huge violation of ESRB rules.
If the ESRB allowed any code to be left in which could be unlocked, then the ESRB is a goner. That is not an exaggeration. Dennis, you know how serious this is. ”
Your Luddite level of ignorance towards all things digital is amusing to me. Yes Rockstar placed filters over the more grisly acts in Manhunt 2, said filters are a cakewalk for any hacker to remove. I fail to see how people illegally modifying the game is Rockstar’s fault or how it would end the ESRB.
To break it down even simpler for you I will note that there is a MODification you can add to a car called a nitrous oxide booster. Now this is quite illegal in many places. Now should we be suing Ford Motor Company as it is possible to add this modification to their vehicle?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
@ Andrew Eisen
JT’s probably going to bet his career on it soon enough.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Apparently lots of people here including jt have no clue about games development, It is imposable for devs to lock anything, ever and from my understanding of this lock it appears like a perfectly acceptable way to disallow the objectionable content as to unlock it would require a active want to unlock it as well as skill in hacking the psp, and breaking of the copyright of the game.
Left over game code and modding should never be even considered during the rating of games, people just need to learn that if people with knowledge want to change a game they will.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The games won’t be recalled they were never released! Remember you won and stopped the release. You were wrong then, your wrong now. The game won’t be recalled. For godsake Jack you don’t even know what the hack does. Your screaming murder and it might just change the in game lighting.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
@ Zen
That’s a great comparison, actually. Black box cable vs. the R* filter…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
And anyone who thought that the hackers weren’t going to find a way around the filters is a moron. I just didn’t think it would be thick quickly. I thought at least 2 weeks. But them finding a work around of the blur and filters? This was expected, this isn’t news.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
@ Erik
The problem is that the ESRB has already set a precedent that locked content is supposedly covered by their rating. Hot Coffee was rerated due to content that had to be unlocked via hack.
I really hate to seem like I’m on JT’s side (really really I do), but as a rational person (although he is not) I do agree that this is going to be difficult for them to defend (they should have done it last time),
November 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Its not “locked content”, its the same content. But without the irritating technicolor vomit splashed all over the screen.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Vellocet,
As far as we’ve seen, no content has been unlocked. In fact, this hack actually removes content (the obscuring filters).
Andrew Eisen
November 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I said if they didn’t tell the ESRB then that’s bad. Why should we believe T2 on any of this, as to whom they told, etc. The ESRB has yet to talk.
As I earlier noted, if the ESRB did know about the leaving in of this stuff, then that’s even worse for the industry, because they’re the clowns that are supposed to make sure this can’t happen!
Don’t you get it? The watchdog may be complicit in this! The bottom line is that these games are going to have to be recalled. Just watch.
Except for two things:
1) As of this time, the official story is that T2 told the ESRB. We’ll see what the ESRB says, but at this time there’s no reason to call them a liar.
2) The FTC does indeed warn about the deceptive content clause. However, I’m not sure what the deception is. There’s no hidden hardcore sexual content here. There’s violence in a game that is already rated M for “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs”. What content has been unlocked that’s not already listed on the packaging?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
[…] [Thanks to GamePolitics] […]
November 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
There may be another factor going on here…
It looks like the blur is not the only thing that added to the game to get the M rating… it looks like level 13 is missing as well as some other functionality (decapitating with various objects, etc).
November 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
@Matthew
That was an excellent technical summary - and I think you dumbed it down enough so that even Jack can understand it, maybe.
Once again, Jack is COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTANDING the issue.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
The thing is that no matter how much you PLAY the game, you can never see this content. Ever. Period. It is considered locked content because of this fact. Methods outside of -playing-, in order to modify code, make that code not a product of Rockstar, but a product of whatever hacker altered it.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Someone removed a part of the code! Rockstar can’t control that! It’s not so difficult to understand.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
@vellocet
The problem is that the ESRB has already set a precedent that locked content is supposedly covered by their rating.
On the other hand, the ESRB could come out and say “yes, we considered the unlockable content when we assigned the M rating.”
Remember, some scenes WERE deleted altogether. (the testicle-vice cutscene for example)
November 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
@ Erik, Andrew Eisen
You’re probably right about that. But the general game hating public won’t see it that way.
Basically what I’m saying is that regardless, there is no additional content ADDED to the game. The game as it stands can be modified to a state that (maybe) is not rated the way it’s meant to be. This is the argument that people may make… That the ESRB had let that kind of thing happen before (no additional content).
Technically, you could say that Hot Coffee was removal of the software “filter” that kept you from playing the mini game.
Anyways, I’m hoping that the rerate from AO to M had more to do with the removal of castration/decapitation and level 13 than the addition of the filter.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
@Phantom
As of this time, the official story is that T2 told the ESRB. We’ll see what the ESRB says, but at this time there’s no reason to call them a liar
Jack’s just pissy because I’m insisting HE’s the liar. His only defense seems to be “well, T2 *might* be lying too, so nyah!”
November 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
@ Jabrwock
JT does not have the mental capacity to understand what’s really going on with this hack. Unfortunately, neither do most people.
Is there any point in trying to explain it to them?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
@jack thompson, massacre chaser
By modifying the code in this manner, they are breaking the EULA for the game, and thus using the product in a manner it was not intended to be used, as well as explicitly forbidden in the contract agreed to when it is installed and used. It is like how a computer owner loses warranty when they overclock their system because the are modifying it in a manner that it was not intended to be, or how a car owner cannot legally modify their engines in certain ways. It is like how you cannot sue the manufacturer of an iron when you try to iron someone’s clothes because you injure yourself when you cannot keep your hands out of the pockets.
@Zerodash
I will pay 10 grand to charity if JT follows through on his old mendacious promise…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
All I can say is, I’m not worried. A few years from now Rockstar will release Manhunt 3 which will be rated by the ESRB. The only variable is Jack may or may not have the capacity (law license) to do anything about it.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Jack,
Do you remember a class you took in 2nd year? One called Evidence? It should have been a compulsory course. Anyhow, you are making quite a few accusations but you don’t seem to have a lot of evidence to back any of them up. As you may remember from your second year of law school, opinion is not evidence, nor is supposition, innuendo, fiction or ’similar facts’.
There are a lot of ‘if’s in your accusations but without any evidence it amounts to pretty much nothing.
Chris Wallace
November 1st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
aso thats happened is somebody modded and hacked the shit out of it. so what that happens to half life 2 every fucking day.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
@ApokalypseNow:
Thanks, but someone kind of beat me to it. It is more like a scrambled movie; the channel shows the film to every home, but it broadcasts a signal that scrambles the image. If you hack the broadcast and de-scramble it, you get to see the movie.
Hear that, Jack? Porn is being sent THROUGH THE AIR to nearly EVERY TV IN THE COUNTRY, but it is hidden behind a wall of static. Some people can modify their systems to enter a “cheat code” that lets them watch the film. Similar deal really.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
@ JT
Ok, so we’re supposed to automatically blame the ESRB because they “may be complicit ” in knowing that the material was there and could be hacked?
“May be complicit” is a world apart from “is complicit”, and you know that. Stop making baseless speculations as to guilt.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
@anyone:
As far as T2’s supposed level of culpability, isn’t the EULA relevant here? As long as everything was initially disclosed…
@Jack Thompson:
There will be no recall because T2 did not violate ESRB/FTC mandates, and there was no rating change back to AO. Enough of your stupid pipe dreams. And Jabr’s right, you ARE dense, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about you.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Johnny Bruce Thompson, posts to GP’s forum because he wants attention.
No surprise since his legal career is in tatters.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
@JT
If I really wanted to, I could make a modification that removed all the clothing from the latest Barbie game, thus filling it with nudes. Technically, this is the same sort of modification that is involved with the Manhunt mod. That doesn’t mean Mattel has done something wrong, it doesn’t mean that there was porn that I could “unlock”, it just means that code can be changed and I did it.
Even if I did do this I doubt you’d go after Mattel, since you don’t have a hard-on for their CEO like you do for Take Two’s.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
My 6 year old has issues with his behaviour because he wants attention…funny how it is basically the same thing with ole Jack here. Funny indeed.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
@JT
REMOVING THIS BLURRINESS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN REMOVING THE BLURRINESS FROM THE SIMS!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
One thing we have to remember here is that Rockstar actually informed the ESRB of the method they used to obscure the content. The ESRB KNOWS what they did, and were OK with that method, which makes the whole ‘It’s going to be recalled’ argument moot. The ESRB found this acceptable, unlike with Hot Coffee, in which Rockstar did not disclose the hidden content, and the ESRB handed them their asses.
Rockstar has covered themselves pretty good on this one.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Also, anybody remember when he tried to say “The Sims” all were physically correct after you removed the clothes or (just like is being done to Manhunt 2) hacked the game to remove the blur when they shower. They were no more correct than a Barbie doll a child can play with, but that didn’t stop ole Jack from lying about that too.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Ack, HandofCrom beat me to it.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
(Addendum: There is a slight difference, in that those porn films are designed to be viewed by people if they wish. Manhunt 2 does not offer the functionality to ‘decode’.)
November 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
@ Apokalypse
LOL…beat me to it on the post. Nicely done.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Thanks to Matthew for the explanation here. It seems to me this was an unavoidable situation and the ESRB and Take 2 both handled it correctly. It’s not like plenty of other games haven’t had gory kill sequences (Tenchu series, for instance).
November 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Remember when JT tried to get the Sims banned because someone was creating nude skins for the child models?
That’s just an example of how he has no understanding of game technology and the modding community.
EA’s response was really good… I wonder if I can find it… they said something like “Reasonable people know that the Boston Globe is not responsible for what people write in its margins”
November 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
@Jack
I said if they didn’t tell the ESRB then that’s bad.
It just occured to me you can’t even tell the truth about what you yourself said. Good grief…
Let’s review, shall we?
The ESRB made it REALLY clear that if a developer left code in a game that could be unlocked, then that would be a huge violation of ESRB rules.
Lie.The ESRB said code that was left in a game that was not disclosed to the ESRB.
These idiots left the edits in, and they were told by the ESRB NEVER TO DO THAT AGAIN!
Lie. They were told not to leave edits in and not tell the ESRB. Leaving the edits in is perfectly fine, as long as the ESRB knows about them.
So that’s twice now that you’ve lied about what the ESRB said, and then tried to cover your arse by claiming that you had said something completely different.
The didn’t heed the FTC’s warning to nail their butts if they ever did it again.
So far, a lie (who’s jumping the gun now?) The FTC said if they deceived the ESRB again, they’d nail their butts. (what is it with you and gay imagery?) Until you have proof they deceived the ESRB, you are still a liar.
Under terms of a proposed consent decree, the FTC will require Take-Two and Rockstar going forward to clearly disclose all content relevant to a game’s rating on its packaging.
The FTC said “disclose all content”. They disclosed to the ESRB, who then authorizes the “M” on the package. The case clearly states “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence”. The scenes… contain blood and gore, and intense violence. Sounds like it’s in compliance to me.
The companies must also set up a content review system to spare the gaming public additional servings of Hot Coffee.
Like submitting it to the ESRB? Yep, in compliance.
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
@Zen
I think I must be reading your mind, I just mentioned Barbie and The Sims a few minutes before you did!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
@thompson
there is hackable material in the game. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. do you know how complex it is for the casual gamer to unlock those things? if its hard for adults to do how do you think its going to be any easier for people who are underage to do it? the only way people can even know about this is by word of mouth, which you are contributing by drawing attention to it. if you kept your damn mouth shut for 5 minutes maybe this whole thing will go unnoticed since nobody would know about the stuff unless they really go to high lengths to learn about it.
i highly doubt the average gamer, adult or not, is going to go through all that work just to see some hidden content. i dont know about the rest of you but when i spend my money on a game i intend to play it, not sit around tinkering with the technical crap. i doubt “children” will feel any differently considering most children have an attention span of about 10 seconds, by the time they read about it, they will forget how to access it anyway.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“Take Two’s spokesman could not speculate as to whether hackers might be able to unlock AO content on the PS2 or Wii versions of the game.”
I’m pretty sure this has happened already (http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=22430). The same basic guidelines apply as with the PSP which you must:
1. Have a modified (illegal) PlayStation 2 system
2. A backup/dump of the ORIGINAL game Manhunt 2, or obtain it by downloading it (again, illegal)
3. Modify files within the ISO
4. Repackage the ISO
5. Either dump it to a PS2 Modified Hard Drive, or burned to a DVD to be played on an (once more) illegally modified PlayStation 2
Basically Jack, you’re a shitheel and I pray to your god to have a truck plow into your retarded ass every time you leave your driveway. No kid will be able to just hit R1+L2+Down Arrow and do some other button combinations to unlock this, you actually have to know what you’re doing. In the case of the PSP–YOU CAN’T EVEN BEGIN TO DUMP UMD’S WITHOUT SERIOUS KNOW-HOW. Your crusade is tired, give it up.
Lastly, if a kid is actually smart enough to know how to do all this, AND play the game uncensored, I say let him and encourage his technical prowess. Find me any kid you want, Jacky boy, I guarantee you not one of them will know how to pull this off.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
And Zen beat me to my post… and I had posted it before the update… boy do I feel like an idiot.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hmm, so the color filter/blur can be removed to show what’s underneath? Sorta like The Sims?
/me runs
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
@ Vellocet
It’s all good. Just shows we all seem to have some common sense here and can share common thoughts lol. United we stand!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I hope I’m not overdoing it with the posts but I have a better summary. Jack, please read this:
A game cannot generate a blurry image “live.” It has to generate a clear image and then blur it. It is therefore always going to be possible to hack it and remove the blurring code.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
@vellocet
And I beat Zen by mere seconds… it appears we’re all on the same wavelength here. Now if only we could perform some form of additive interference on this wavelength and direct it through a lens at Jack’s head…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Based on the information provided, it sounds like the hackers removed part of the operability of the game so that content disclaimed on the marketed packaging is fully rendered.
I’m not sure if this is an appropriate example, let’s say I made a game where violence is rampant and on one level there is a scene where a room goes completely dark right as someone is murdered… if a hacker keeps the room from going dark and I have access to the full animation, then that’s still full disclosure of content to the ESRB but an unsupported hack to circumvent access to the content.
The ruling seems to address the lack of disclosure regarding content vs. restriction to unintented content.
The best case here is that RS/T2 didn’t take significant steps to restrict access to the content to avoid cancellation or extreme release of the product. Regardless, the content is still appropriately disclosed and the rating is based on the content disclosed.
There is no way you’re going to have the FTC make a ruling on the development practices of a company vs. the content they are allowed to present. I’d be interested in the day that does happen though.
Now, as for RS and T2. They rushed a game that was too violent to originally release and will probably take more flak they rightly deserve. Have they broken any rules? Probably not, but I’m sure some will make the case.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I just watch the comparison video at GameVideos and it’s pretty clear to me the video effects are just an artistic decision and have nothing to do with getting a lower rating. Basically, it normally looks like it’s shot with a crappy video camera. It doesn’t really obscure what’s going on. There’s nothing in the uncensored version outside the limits of an M.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Looks like illspirit has joined us!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
extreme release = extreme delay of release.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
@ Jabrwock
I don’t know if it really constitutes “lying” on the part of JT. I think he’s just too stupid to understand what he’s talking about.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
@illspirit
Hmm, so the color filter/blur can be removed to show what’s underneath? Sorta like The Sims?
Sort of, except thanks to Kotaku, we know that the colour filter, wasn’t really obscuring anything, just giving you a headache while you tried to look at it…
So it would be more like the blur filter not really being present in the Sims, but Maxis turned the Barbie doll model green instead of flesh coloured. And then someone figured out how to hack it so it was flesh coloured again…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
@jonc2006
It’s not hackable material. It’s hackable mechnisms. The material is still the same from what I’ve read.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
[…] Thanks for the Update: GamePolitics.com […]
November 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
@ JT
“I said if they didn’t tell the ESRB then that’s bad.”
- Since this content was removed/blurred to appease the ESRB, that indicates they were aware of it.
“…if the ESRB did know about the leaving in of this stuff…”
- try some common sense. If it’s damn near impossible for the average user to enact the hacks necessary to access this material, why should the ESRB care.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
@ Matthew
I wrote an analogy earlier that may also work…
“Let’s say there was a movie that had nudity in it, and the producers decided to remove the nudity by putting black bars over it… Now, the actors are still there, just with black bars. The blurring in Manhunt 2 is equivalent to black bars. If someone were to remove the black bars, the underlying content is still there… but in order to remove THAT you’d have to remove the actors, and then you wouldn’t have a movie anymore.”
@ Zen
There is no way that JT would ever understand what we’d be talking about. He’s technologically stupid. Socially stupid. Ethically stupid… I guess he’s just stupid.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
@vellocet
I don’t know if it really constitutes “lying” on the part of JT. I think he’s just too stupid to understand what he’s talking about.
That’s entirely possible too. But calling him mentally deficient, frankly, would be an insult to the mentally deficient…
Besides, he’s got a psych-eval “proving” he’s not a mental case. Although I suppose they only test for psychosis, not stupidity…
Ok, so Jack’s just an idiot then. He’s incapable of lying, because he’s too stupid to know the truth if it hit him in the head with a copy of the 1st Amendment.
Guess he’s just lying about his “expert” status then.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
@thomas
material, mechnisms, either way its not something the casual gamer would take up.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
From the Gaming Today article:
“Apparently, savvy techs have played with the code in an attempt to reinstate the scenes that would have garnered the game an “AO” rating with the ESRB. The violent content thought to have been removed from the game was apparently only “disabled””
They said that the content was only “disabled”. This is not correct… there was more than just the blurring added to the game.
It’s sad that even the gaming press can’t get the details right.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
@ jonc2006
I’ve been playing games for most of my life, have a good working background with computer systems, and have even done system repair..and I STILL have a heck of a time getting some of the model and level mods to work correctly on the original Sims and Quake 3 Arena lol…thought it was worth it to have a Wing Gundam running around the house looking for food or jumping around a FPS has Homer Simpson blowing people up. Innocent fun
November 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
So essentially what this means is critics will now demand all in game cut scenes are pre rendered?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Excuse me, mister fifty-something poor excuse for a lawyer? Why would someone like you in their right mind think that making insults or interrupting people (as seen on Fox “News”) would make YOUR argument more valid. Do us a favor and apologize to Karl Rove for ripping off his kind of propaganda and using it in a more blatantly derogatory way. (Also give this to NewsCorp., Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and any other of Bush Administration’s blind followers). Oh, and the more you act like a middle-schooler, the more you’re going to be slammed on urbandictionary.com in a negative fashion.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
@Thomas
Technically the content is *less* rendered, as the blurring effect is an additional layer on top of clear image that must be rendered first.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
@ JT
Let me break this down into an area you might have a better ability to comprehend since they’ve been around longer than software/video games…
Cars.
Did you know all manufacturers of motor vehicles today produce cars that are modified to meet the definition of street legal? In fact let’s just call a street legal car an M rated car (you should be at least 16 or 17 to drive legally right?). Well this M rated car has a throttle/speed limiter or in this case a blur filter to make sure you don’t violate the law and go to fast. In the case of this game have content that makes it an AO status.
One day you decide the car just doesn’t go fast enough, so you remove the speed limiter. Y-O-U removed the speed limiter. The manufacturer of your car never told you how nor endorsed it and the department of motor vehicles certainly didn’t give you an ok to do it, but you did anyway.
So who’s to blame Jack? The person who removed the limiter and made the car no longer street legal, the company for not putting a smaller engine in the car, or the department of motor vehicles for having roads that allowed this person to drive a car as such…
Last I checked the legal precident is that the individual who modified the car is to blame. This situation is no different. Those who hacked the game are the ones to blame.
Dust off your law books and do some reading. You’re in waters that have already been charted.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
@Loudspeaker
Good analogy, but why does ever situation requiring an analogy inevitably wind up going to cars?
Those who answer this question with a car analogy shall be institutionalized for life.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
@ Loudspeaker
I had the same thought, but couldn’t get the wording done any better. Great point
November 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I find it highly unlikely that R* would do anything that would get them in trouble again- Hot Coffee hurt ‘em bad. If this is comparable (which I doubt), then they deserve everything that is coming to them.
Honestly, it must suck to be in JT’s shoes now. Here is what he believes to be the silver bullet to kill Rockstar, the ESRB, and the games industry in general. And yet, because of his R* settlement, he is legally powerless to do anything about it. Top it off with his bar woes and you have a sad state of affairs.
Hang in there, sweetie!
November 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Well, if the color vomit filter didn’t affect the rating, isn’t this a non-story? AFAIK, all the hack does is remove the filter, and supposedly the dodgy kills (plier castration and such) aren’t on the disc.
I’ll go buy the game and snoop around a bit. If they’re still using Rockstar North’s file formats, it should only take an hour or two…
November 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
@Zen
That mod would only be complete if, instead of hopping in a car to go to work in the mornings, the Wing Gundam transformed into jet mode and just flew down the road.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
@ApokalypseNow
Cuz uh…
I dunno.
You try to explain how a LAN works to an end user and not end up discussing the morning traffic patters.
@ Zen
Thank you. Decided to stop lurking a couple days ago. This site rocks! Lots of informed readers.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Wow. I think I could learn more about game development through hacking than just classes. Anyone have sites about that? (hopefully legal kinds)
November 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Aye, just wanted to clarify it wasn’t access to material locked in the game. Just removing the render of content that has been accessed previously.
I like the analogy to blackbars in movies better than my horrible attempt at a gaming analogy.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Well, Jacks gone quiet it seems for a bit…ambulance must have driven past him.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
A recall wouldn’t do spit. When’s the last time a recall was mandatory, and whom, who already owns it, would turn it back in? Worst case scenario - they do like GTA:SA and release an AO version. Meanwhile the ebay value of the unedited version goes through the roof.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
@Zen
…to which he promptly cried, “To the Batmobile! Jack Thompson-man, AWAY!”
November 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I just don’t see why this would need to be rereleased as an AO.
@All
Does anyone know if the hack reveals pornographic material or nudity?
If it did then I can see why there would be a call for a change in its rating.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Another analogy, perhaps? One that Jack can relate to and doesn’t involve cars?
Jack. Your book doesn’t exist as a book until it is printed. Before that, it is some code. Words, typesetting, all that sort of jazz. Someone somewhere presses a button to start a print run and WHAMMO you’ve got some books.
A game does not exist as a moving image on the screen until it is executed. Before that, it is some code. Models, textures, motion, all that sort of jazz. Thirty times a second the computer triggers a frame display and WHAMMO you’ve got a picture.
Editing the code to change the game’s display is like editing your book’s body text before printing it. If I were to sneak into your chosen publishing house and change your master copy so that page 6 was a graphic depiction of homosexual intercourse, your book would change. Are you responsible for the content of the modified version?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Filter: Content is ADDED that blocks and/or obscures content that is ALREADY THERE. Filtering CAN be removed. It’s just not always easy. And, if the ESRB is as informed about certain aspects of game programming as they should be, they took this into account when giving the censored version an M rating. Working with video games is part of their job, so they would know. Lawyers are not required to work with video games, so they wouldn’t know.
Note: The filter IS the “edits” that they left in. Oh noes!
Removal: Removing content in its entirety. This is what they essentially did with Hot Coffee, except they forgot to actually physically remove the data, and merely removed the “access” to the content.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:56 pm
@ Matthew
It would be more accurate that you would go in and highlight all of the lies yellow so that the filter would no longer hide the truth…but then your just left with a bunch of yellow paper.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I find it ridiculously funny that, while Jack tries to make others take responsibility for wrongs they didn’t commit, he himself won’t take responsibility for the wrongs he commits himself (*cough-GAYPORN-cough*).
November 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Kudos for S