Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

[Melfice]

9 minutes ago, regex said:

As for the OP, I don't see Take Two or Rockstar doing anything wrong in shutting down that mod, especially if it exposes/helps expose content that is intended to be monetized, even for single player.

Leading into a discussion of: "Are microtransactions optional?"

EDIT:
 

To summarize what @regex has said in a few sentences...

Software piracy is wrong and illegal. This mod that was crushed by TakeTwo did just that - it cracked part of the code and it was a type of piracy. It was wrong. TakeTwo was correct in doing this.

 

What was stolen from GTA 5 with this mod?
Again, somebody who wasn't going to pay isn't going to start paying when the free option is removed.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Melfice

[regex]

Just now, Melfice said:

Leading into a discussion of: "Are microtransactions optional?"

Well, that depends on the game, who designed it, and what they're trying to achieve. All the more reason to check out a game and how it is designed before buying.

4 minutes ago, Melfice said:

Again, somebody who wasn't going to pay isn't going to start paying when the free option is removed.

That doesn't mean they're entitled to the content, though.

[HvP]

20 minutes ago, regex said:

I don't see Take Two or Rockstar doing anything wrong in shutting down that mod, especially if it exposes/helps expose content that is intended to be monetized, even for single player.

So after the "Making History" expansion is released, if somebody illegally makes a Module Manager based mod to give the mission planner functionality to people who didn't buy the expansion then you are arguing that you'd be A OK with Take-Two threatening legal action against anyone who continues to develop the Module Manager tool?

[Galileo]

9 minutes ago, Melfice said:

Again, somebody who wasn't going to pay isn't going to start paying when the free option is removed.

You keep making this arguement but the truth is, yes, people would by it. Even if it's a fraction of the people that pirated it in the first place, TT has nothing to lose, and a few dollars to gain. Some people might actually really like the stuff they pirated and wouldn't want to play with out it. You may not feel inclined to purchase anything, but I don't think you speak for all players either. 

[regex]

12 minutes ago, HvP said:

So after the "Making History" expansion is released, if somebody illegally makes a Module Manager based mod to give the mission planner functionality to people who didn't buy the expansion then you are arguing that you'd be A OK with Take-Two threatening legal action against anyone who continues to develop the Module Manager tool?

If that's the best way for Squad/Take Two to protect their IP, striking at the root of the problem rather than the top-level abusive mod, then I won't begrudge them that because it is their right as owner of the IP and code. On the other hand, they will have lost a customer (and probably more than me).

If OpenIV was so deep into the game code providing hooks that allowed monetized content to be exposed then that is the real problem mod, not the one that exposed the content after the fact. Getting rid of OpenIV gets rid of the current problem and any future problems. It may seem unfair but from a business standpoint it's the cheapest and easiest way to protect your assets.

Edited June 16, 2017 by regex

[HvP]

9 minutes ago, regex said:

If that's the best way for Squad/Take Two to protect their IP, striking at the root of the problem rather than the top-level abusive mod, then I won't begrudge them that because it is their right as owner of the IP and code. On the other hand, they will have lost a customer (and probably more than me).

If OpenIV was so deep into the game code providing hooks that allowed monetized content to be exposed then that is the real problem mod, not the one that exposed the content after the fact. Getting rid of OpenIV gets rid of the current problem and any future problems. It may seem unfair but from a business standpoint it's the cheapest and easiest way to protect your assets.

Which is why everyone is so concerned. Taking down Module Manager doesn't seem functionally or legally any different than taking down OpenIV. It seems inevitable because sooner or later some modder will likely use MM to abuse the DLC that KSP is developing.

[Galileo]

3 minutes ago, HvP said:

Which is why everyone is so concerned. Taking down Module Manager doesn't seem functionally or legally any different than taking down OpenIV. It seems inevitable because sooner or later some modder will likely use MM to abuse the DLC that KSP is developing.

Or TT has no plans to stop modding within KSP's community and all of this "concern" is for nothing. 

We don't have damning statement from TT, so everything right now is just speculation and fear mongering.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Galileo

[regex]

12 minutes ago, HvP said:

Which is why everyone is so concerned. Taking down Module Manager doesn't seem functionally or legally any different than taking down OpenIV. It seems inevitable because sooner or later some modder will likely use MM to abuse the DLC that KSP is developing.

If you're that worried then make sure you've got an up-to-date install safe from auto-updating that you can keep and run as you wish. I personally do that anyway but not because I'm afraid of Squad/Take Two suddenly trying to crush the modding community.

Honestly, it's not like they can retroactively install DRM on your old versions of KSP...

Edited June 16, 2017 by regex

[Gaarst]

14 minutes ago, HvP said:

Which is why everyone is so concerned.

No. I am not concerned, I am part of everyone, therefore everyone is not so concerned.

KSP was built since the beginning with the idea of making modding easy, which is why it is so easy to mod (kind of the point). Installing a DRM or any anti-modding software would pretty much require a complete rewrite of the game. As for MM, I don't know the details of its functioning, I'm pretty sure it fits within the EULA.

Also yeah, unless TakeTwo are really stupid they won't take down KSP modding since it is one of the main selling point of the game. GTA has other means of monetisation which could justify taking down modding from a business point of view, KSP doesn't.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Gaarst
Typo

[HvP]

I want to be wrong. I hope you're right.

[HebaruSan]

1 hour ago, HvP said:

sooner or later some modder will likely use MM to abuse the DLC that KSP is developing.

That's only a risk if the expansion can be downloaded without purchasing and then unlocked later. As long as it's a separate purchase-gated download, then the only thing ModuleManager can do is normal modding as it does now, since the expansion's assets wouldn't be available to "abuse."

[llanthas]

The problem, of course, is using the intellectual property of existing mods, deciding to monetize it after the fact, and then threatening to sue the original modders.

[Starman4308]

My understanding of Module Manager is that it could only break really, really sloppily written DRM. It modifies part configuration at runtime, and given that part configurations are ordinarily stored in plain text files, any DRM enforcement worth its salt would not use the part configuration to lock proprietary assets down.

DRMed assets would not be in GameData with nice .cfg, .mu, and .dds files describing them and a "please don't steal me" sticker, you'd almost certainly see them tucked away in some locked-down, encrypted binary file with an obscure name and obscure format.

[Benjamin Kerman]

Well, MM is something that edits cfg file on load. Something that adds MHE functionality is fundamentally different then this. MM is not going to be shut down unless TT shuts down all the mods. Something that adds a Mission Builder aspect might. If it was made before the expansion was dreamed of, it will be shut down with a nice letter and gifts (maybe. It wont be a big mean thing). If it is made after then, it will probably be shut down with astroids and flaming arrows, if you know what I'm saying. 

Thats my $0.02 on this subject, i think that would be a reasonable thing to do. Seeing as i havent ever seen the idea for a mission builder plugin before, the only plausible option that will happen at this point is some one being stupid and recreating the mission builder and releasing it as a mod. Thats just plain stupid. 

3 hours ago, llanthas said:

The problem, of course, is using the intellectual property of existing mods, deciding to monetize it after the fact, and then threatening to sue the original modders.

But then you have the problem of commit history. If there's a GitHub, it automatically invalidates SQUAD/TT's argument.

[HebaruSan]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

Well, MM is something that edits cfg file on load. Something that adds MHE functionality is fundamentally different then this.

Multiple Hereditary Exostoses?

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

MM is not going to be shut down unless TT shuts down all the mods.

It doesn't work that way. They could decide to send cease and desist letters on a case by case basis. If one particular mod is identified as a problem, there's no requirement to target anyone else.

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

a nice letter and gifts

astroids and flaming arrows

No, it would be a simple formal letter in either case.

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

recreating the mission builder and releasing it as a mod.

That actually wouldn't be legally problematic in itself as long as no code or assets of the expansion were used. Modders own the code and assets that they create, and can license and distribute them as they please as long as they don't violate the rules. Yes, TTWO might not like free competition, but that in itself isn't a violation.

[richfiles]

6 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

To summarize what @regex has said in a few sentences...

Software piracy is wrong and illegal. This mod that was crushed by TakeTwo did just that - it cracked part of the code and it was a type of piracy. It was wrong. TakeTwo was correct in doing this.

No. You are wrong. The software did not "pirate" anything. It was reverse engineered. If you think reverse engineering is wrong, then you had BETTER only buy your PC from IBM, cause EVERY non IBM PC was derived thanks to reverse engineering the original IBM PC. Courts have been slowly leaning toward EULAs not being binding contracts in recent years, particularly if you didn't agree to the terms BEFORE buying (this varies per jurisdiction).

Even the creators of the mod stated that if they wanted to fight this, they Might be able to fend off Take-Two... But it could be months or years in court, and be very expensive and stressful, so they are caving to the demands for their own sanity and finances. That's the nature of the court systems. You don't need to be int he right... You only need to be rich enough to bleed the opponent into financial ruin. Rarely do cases actually GO to judgement... They are usually settled, which means the two parties come to an agreement outside of a court judgement.

Understand what you are talking about before putting your foot in your mouth. Piracy would be distributing or acquiring the game without paying Take-Two and Rockstar for it. This is a modding tool. It implements the means to install and create mods for GTA. It doesn't pirate GTA. If a person creates a mod that pirates other content, that's not the mod tool's fault, it's the creator of the individual mod, which is a wholly separate thing from the mod TOOLS. Even the mods that were supposed to import GTA IV into GTA V REQUIRED you possess BOTH GTA V and IV, and simply loads GTA IV's data into V. A creative mod indeed, but it still requires you buy both games... And that is still not the Mod Tool... It's like blaming Microsoft Office for someone plagiarizing a book with it. The argument is simultaneously absurd and invalid.

[richfiles]

7 hours ago, regex said:

If OpenIV was so deep into the game code providing hooks that allowed monetized content to be exposed then that is the real problem mod, not the one that exposed the content after the fact. Getting rid of OpenIV gets rid of the current problem and any future problems. It may seem unfair but from a business standpoint it's the cheapest and easiest way to protect your assets.

If they show the work of legit reverse engineering it, they have every right to delve that deep in the code... The C&D should have gone out to individual mods/modders that openly cause problems or violate/access monetized content, not the tool. It's like sending a C&D to Microsoft to stop distributing office, cause someone plagiarized a book, or C&Ding the organization that distributes the Arduino IDE software, cause someone used an Arduino to jailbreak a console, or some such nonsense. Unless you own a genuine IBM PC, you're using reverse engineered technology... The process is well defined, and is 100% permissible in a court of law as a valid way to recreate a competitor's product, or derive a means to interface with it. This is how the PC clone market came about. It's most definitely not illegal in any way. That's why going after the tool is a bad move. They should have gone after the individual mods unlocking their monetized content. That would likely fall into the realm of piracy. 

From a business standpoint... Take Two may have shot themselves in the foot... GTA is a juggernaut that refuses to die down... It certainly won't just drop out of the sales rankings overnight, but this might be the first nail in that coffin. The start of a drawn out decline. Killing new and creative content in single player means single player is now officially all played out... There's literally nothing new to keep interest. That leaves only the cash grab that is GTA Online (and Shark Cards), and I suspect that will diminish over time too. As people who come in for the enjoyment of mods stop coming back to the game, and new people who might have considered getting GTA V for the mods decide to abandon it, that's that many fewer people that might have selected online instead of offline.

I don't know... I can't predict what will happen. I just know I'm not giving Take-Two anymore of MY money... That INCLUDES paid DLC for KSP.

[Melfice]

7 hours ago, regex said:

If OpenIV was so deep into the game code providing hooks that allowed monetized content to be exposed then that is the real problem mod,

AGAIN, this wasn't monetised content that was being exposed!

This was content that was made available for free! It just was, for entirely devious reasons, locked away from single player because doing so allowed RockStar and Take Two to rake in a bit more money from the microtransactions.

 

Yes, I'm entirely aware how weird that reads. But that hopefully also illustrates how entirely horrible microtransactions are.

[Moh1336]

9 hours ago, Melfice said:

Again, somebody who wasn't going to pay isn't going to start paying when the free option is removed.

 

That's generally not true. Most people prefer a game to have content as stock/DLC because they know it means it will work with all future updates without having to wait for modders to update.

Read through the forums here in the "what mods would you like to see in official update" type threads. They're full of mods people want as stock and although I'm sure they would rather have them as free updates, you can bet most would pay for it as DLC too.

Some people might not want to pay, that's normal. But it's not really about "it used to be free" it's more a case of "It's not worth paying for" and they are completely separate issues.

 

At the end of the day, I hope nothing changes with KSP in regards to mods, if it does change then I will look into what I feel is the best course for me. IF that means following KSP where TTI take it, sobeit, if it means never updating past 1.3 and using mods, then that's fine too.

I don't mind paying £2.50/£3 for good DLC content, for example if they decided to do their own life support DLC that would be worth buying imo (so long as it is at least on par with Roverdude's mods) but the small microtransactions like 50pence for a new skin, or unlock X science for career type stuff. Well, they can stick that where Kerbol don't shine.

[Starman4308]

4 hours ago, Melfice said:

This was content that was made available for free! It just was, for entirely devious reasons, locked away from single player because doing so allowed RockStar and Take Two to rake in a bit more money from the microtransactions.

I'm still unclear on how this doesn't constitute piracy.

Take Two has the right to enforce whatever restrictions they like. You might disagree with them, but they have the right to say "this content is only available online", and if OpenIV subverts that policy, Take Two had every right to shut it down.

5 hours ago, richfiles said:

If they show the work of legit reverse engineering it, they have every right to delve that deep in the code... The C&D should have gone out to individual mods/modders that openly cause problems or violate/access monetized content, not the tool.

The amount of effort spent on cracking secure code does not have anything to do with how legal the cracking was. As to sending C&Ds out... you have the issue that there are a lot of those mods and modders, and I don't blame Take Two for going after the root of the problem, a mod that makes cracking monetized content much easier.

[Melfice]

30 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

I'm still unclear on how this doesn't constitute piracy.

What was stolen?
Free content was made available universally.

[Starman4308]

2 minutes ago, Melfice said:

What was stolen?
Free content was made available universally.

The free content was stolen.

Let's say I'm a preacher for religion X, distributing tickets to some event on the condition that they accept a copy of the unnamed holy book. If you start distributing bootleg tickets to that event, or take a ticket behind my back, that is still bootlegging/theft, because you are subverting the conditions of getting that ticket.

A software example might be a company including a GPL-licensed open-source library in their proprietary ARR-licensed software, or re-distributing that library under a more permissive license like MIT/BSD. While that's "making free content available for all", it's still in violation of the original license.

As a side note: I thoroughly despise the GPL license. If somebody can make a profit off my non-for-profit, open-source work? Good.

Just because something is free does not mean it cannot be stolen or bootlegged.

[parachutingturtle]

Imagine buying a set of legos. But this set was made by Take-Two Interactive, so there are a few pieces in the box that come with the condition that you may only use them if your friends are playing with you. Whenever you just want to play with your lego set all by yourself, you are forbidden from using these pieces.

And when you disregard the extra condition (and subvert whatever technical barrier was in place to enforce them), you are called a filthy pirate.

All because the company can sell soft drinks to you whenever you play with your friends, or something.

The loss in profit is only indirectly related to making the content available. It is not a real loss, it is a perceived loss, based solely on a "tendency" to pay for microtransactions when playing online, which in itself is based on a "tendency" to choose to play online when finding out that a particular gameplay element is not available in single player.

 

But all in all, it seems like some of the people in this argument are talking about different things... defending the legality, versus calling it a excrementsty move. It is possible for an utterly corrupt, profit-grabbing, unfriendly, game-community-destroying, unethical move to be perfectly legal, and there is no point arguing that.

Edited June 17, 2017 by parachutingturtle

[Benjamin Kerman]

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

MHE = Multiple Hereditary Exostoses?

Making History Expansion!  

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

No, it would be a simple formal letter in either case.

I meant if it was a mod Squad/TT decided to integrate into the stock game. There would probably be more of a "congratulations, you did right!" feel more than a "you stole our idea" feel. Heck, you might even get a plushie out of it.

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

That actually wouldn't be legally problematic in itself as long as no code or assets of the expansion were used. Modders own the code and assets that they create, and can license and distribute them as they please as long as they don't violate the rules. Yes, TTWO might not like free competition, but that in itself isn't a violation.

This is a very interesting point, which brings us right back around neatly to the problem of which all of this occured. Anyone can release anything, but even if the assets arent the same, its the idea that matters. Maybe you cant claim ARR on an idea, but you can on the implementation. Just like if I were to make a dV calculator for KSP that let you build your rocket in my application or ship it in, looked the same as the stock VAB, and had similar part textures: Its perfectly legal, apparently, but there is still the feeling of "stealing the idea". 

[Kerbart]

On 6/15/2017 at 0:32 AM, Melfice said:

I wonder which other mod-heavy games Take-Two have recently acquired? I wonder which other mod-heavy games have been working on a multiplayer mode?
Not implying anything, of course.

I wonder if you actually read what this is all about. Not implying anything, of course.

But yes, I agree, there is a serious chance that T2 will send out cease and desist orders to mod makers of KSP who provide mods that, even if it's just an unintended side-effect, will bypass KSP's DRM and allow mod makers to do things that are outside the realm of what mods are allowed to do in KSP.

Now, pray tell me:

• What are the DRM limitations that exist in KSP?
• What mods are bypassing said DRM limitations?
• What mods exist that cause tension with Squad because they're modding KSP in a way that they're not supposed to?

Surely you will have no problem providing us with such a list, as you clearly imply (just saying you don't doesn't make it so) that this will be the case for KSP.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Kerbart