Jump to content

Talk:Hot Coffee (minigame)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.92.246.142 (talk) at 17:21, 15 February 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

IF this article survives VfD, it should be moved to Hot Coffee mod to provide better disambiguation. There was a fork of this article at Hot Coffee mod, which has now been redirected here. Due to the VfD tag (please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress), the article was merged here until the VfD is settled. -- Norvy (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

This article is baaadly in need of one. It's rather relevant with Jack Thompson in trouble and Clinton running for the presidency Firebomb Fritz (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No part of it should have ever been written in the present tense in the first place — TheBilly(Talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHhat is CLin-ton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.175.98 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot coffee and Hot Coffee mod

Refering to the recent redirecting of the Hot Coffee mod to Hot coffee, I have decided to revert the latest edits and copy all relevent contents from "Hot coffee" back to "Hot Coffee mod".

The problem with the "Hot coffee" title is that it isn't fully capitalized and may also imply that the article is refering to a cup of hot coffee (this has been mentioned in a tagged comment in the main Hot coffee article). Secondly, even with "Coffee" capitalize, the term "Hot Coffee" itself is vague in meaning. It is for that reason that I believe that the article is better named "Hot Coffee mod", since the mod is essentially, well, a mod named after its association with CJ's girlfriend asking CJ to come home for a cup of coffee. I also approve for the inclusion of a diambaguation text (to "coffee") on top of this article.

Note that there is also a related Hot Coffee article that has now become a redirect page to the "Hot Coffee mod" article.

╫ 25 chatter ↔ grafitti 07:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I merged Hot coffee and Hot Coffee mod because they are duplicate articles. Having two different articles on the same thing leads to different quality articles and creates double the work for everyone. The reason I merged into Hot coffee specifically is because it's up for VfD. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. Simply creating a second Hot Coffee article is not an appropriate way to bypass VfD. After the VfD has concluded, I would fully support moving the article to Hot Coffee mod, and will change the note at the top to reflect that. -- Norvy (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News?

I marked the Interlingua article with the {{currente}} template, because it seemed like news to me. Should the English article also be so edited? Almafeta 17:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory recall?

The article specifies the possibility of a mandatory recall. The news mention recall, but there is no mention of it being mandatory. (Was there ever a precedens of a consumer being fined for not complying with a mandatory recall? Can it be enforced for videogames at all? I don't think even Hillary is loony enough to think so.) --Shaddack 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain there was never any discussion of the game actually being recalled from consumers' homes; it was to be recalled from stores(this was not a mandatory recall, last I checked, though it may well become one soon enough), and owners were to be allowed to swap their AO-rated copies for the new M-rated version. There's also been some discussion of allowing the game to be returned for a full refund, but I've yet to see any mention of Rockstar agreeing to anything as drastic as that. And for good reason: It would be financial suicide.
I know it's not a mandatory recall for stores in Canada. At least, I don't think so. I was at my local EBGames the other day and, out of curiousity, I asked if they had taken the game down from the shelves. They said yes, but they still have it behind the counter for sale upon request. I know the owner somewhat, and he seems to me the type of guy to make sure to ID people wanting to buy the game. And if they do do a mandatory recall, even from consumers, like hell they're getting my copies. Not because I enjoy the mod (I haven't even installed it, nor do I intend to), but I'm not giving up first-edition copies (both PS2 & PC) without some sort of reimbursement. --Zeromaru 16:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB Ratings

Not sure if this might compromise the objectivity of the article, but maybe we should clarify the actual meaning of the M->AO rating shift, following the "Hot Coffee" scandal? This might be somewhat tricky, as the line that's been crossed is a remarkably fuzzy one.

The ESRB defines the "M" rating as signifying "content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older...intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language", whereas the "AO" rating stands for "content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older...prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity".

Not much of a distinction there, really, just a vague statement of degree and an additional one-year age limitation. I suppose we could state that the "M" rating is analogous to the MPAA's "NC-17" rating, and "AO" to "X", but this might be seen by some as editorializing.

Ugh. I'm finding it difficult to remain objective when one side of this absurd argument is so obviously right. Virtually all of the "AO"-rated games listed on the ESRB's site are pornographic, while games with just a smidgen of sex or nudity are "M" rated, corresponding perfectly to the MPAA's guidelines. I suppose one could just state, in perfect objectivity, that the M-rated "God of War" shipped with partial nudity(something GTA:SA lacks) and a sex minigame perfectly intact, but this is tangential enough to connotate a stance on the whole controversy, isn't it?

I would say that the ESRB "M" is more analagous to the MPAA "R" rating, rather than to "NC-17," because of the generally lax enforcement of the "R" and "M" ratings. Aerion//talk 03:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken.

Not a Mod

Uhh, it's not a mod. It's unused code that's been enabled. Terabyter

Fixed that. I have edited a few portions of the article to clarify the relationship between the mod and the minigame. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 11:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Yeah, I had misgivings about the title for that reason. Does a one-bit change to enable some code count as a mod? I suppose it's arguable...
--Oolong 15:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, any user-made alterations on a computer game can be considered to be a Mod, even if it merely involves a change in a binary value, which in this case, unlocks the minigame apparently abandoned by R*. The later version of the mod came with replacement textures, which is clearly intended to further alter the minigame's gameplay experience. ╫
As 'mod' is a short term for modification, it is a mod. Any change made to the original software or content must be considered a modification, whether it is 1 bit or 100 MB. Because it has been changed beyond the original design and construction of the game. USing a Game Shark or Action Replay is actually modifying code to make this available, thus the game you are then playing is _not_ the original game no matter how you look at it.

25 ring-a-ding 17:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

A mod is generally recognised as a code that changes the origional code of the product to create something that wasn't origionally there. This is called the "hot coffee mod" because R* said that that was what it was when it was first discovered in an effort to cover themselves from being blamed for putting AO rated material in a game without telling anyone. When the code was found in the PS2 verdion they finnally had to admit that the source of the game wasn't hackers as they had origionaly claimed but R* since a console game is by nature unmodable. It was alway there just waiting to come out and cheat devices don't mod the game they simply change the way that the console reads what is already there but it can't add anything that isn't in the origional code unlike a pc mod.--Hellfireboy 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating Change

Is this the first time a video game had its rating changed ex post facto? If so, we might want to mention that. Addaone 00:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not the first time a game has been rerated after the fact. Dungeon Siege had its rating changed after the fact because of the "chunky" and "superchunky" cheat codes. It was rerated from a "T" to an "M". The "T" rating was restored after a patch was released to remove those code and remastered media were distributed. 66.180.121.115 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However it is the first time a game has been rerated because of a third-party mod. -- Jordi·✆ 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the censored version gets released, will it retain the swear language from the original (e.g. ass, shit, fuck, ni--er, and all those words)? --SuperDude 20:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "censored" version? The re-release has not been censored, the only difference is that the disabled sex game has been completely removed. No other changes were made. -- Jordi·✆ 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HCm scandal

Why the hell would the console versons receive an Ao rating just because of some dumb PC mod for GTA:SA? I thought GTA:SA was good enough as it is and dosen't deserve an obscene mod. I mean, why would console versions be banned from stores just because of the PC version? --SuperDude 19:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the mini-game is still accessible on the console (only PS2 is mentioned, so I don't know if it's also on the XBox), albeit only by using a cheater (GameShark or Action Replay Max). --Nuggetboy 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

Might be because I am Swedish, but I have a hard time seeing how a silly sex-game would require a more "mature" rating than all the gratutious violence otherwise featured in the game.

Yeah, it really stems out of how prude the United States is. What is also ridiculous is that the age to buy a "Mature" game is 17+, whereas the age for an "Adults Only" game is 18+ ... wow, a whole year, what a difference it will make on the impressionable youth! -- MacAddct1984 21:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The difference lies in the retailers carrying it. The biggest retailers (Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City) will not sell Ao games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.89.216 (talk) .

I was a bit baffled by the article, much like the Swedish person above. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that while the rating difference is superficially about one year difference only, there's more politics behind it than would seem at first? Is there an explanation of it somewhere? I think this article generally needs more explanation of the background issues to be comprehensible to non-Americans.

There are other strange things in the controversy section, too. E.g. this:

Jack Thompson, a lawyer and anti-video game activist from Florida, was one of the first to criticize the game for its recently found content. Thompson believes that violent media such as video games are one of the main sources of violent crime in America and has lashed out against Rockstar on several occasions for previous games they have developed.

The first sentence is clear, but then, instead of explaining the criticism of the new content, it is explained that the person has previously criticized violence in the media. But the new content is not violent. What is the relationship here? Also, why is a lawyer activist notable enough to mention first, before such people as a senator? Was he prominent in the traditional media, or what?

The article also says this: "In New York, a class action lawsuit has been filed by Florence Cohen, an 85-year old grandmother who purchased the game for her 14-year old grandson (according to the old rating of M, the game is typically considered inappropriate for this age)." Is the person who filed it, and her personal (absurd) motive really notable here, instead of the actual content, legal basis, etc. of the lawsuit (note that it's class action, not individual lawsuit)? As it's about whether the rating is 17+ or 18+ (which, incidentally, is why the anecdote of the 14-year-old is absurd), and the minigame was disabled in the distributed version, it would seem that the case has snowball's chances in hell of succeeding -- could the basis be elaborated on? As it stands the paragraph serves more to ridicule the case than to discuss it objectively. Also, is the media publicity of the lawsuit (if there was much?) actually the notable part, instead of the lawsuit itself?

"A few sites have emerged as beacons of pro-game activism such as".. Beacons? Heh, I think I'll change this one to read "A few pro-game activist sites have also emerged, such as", as "beacons" implies that this is the enlightened POV. The rest requires more information about the subject matter, which I don't have. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been using Wikipedia for some time but finally signed up as a user just now. I created a website to follow the controversy around the Hot Coffee mod and all of the cultural/ political fallout that's turning up about all of this. I wanted to make an entry in the wiki article but didn't think just publishing a self promotional link would be acceptable without asking first. The website is http://hotcoffee.dahifi.net. I'll check back later and see what you guys think. Thank.

Michael Wade

Bully Controversy, etc...

With the recently added controversy over Rockstar's Bully, I was just thinking that this article is beginning to get a little off topic. This article is not about other games found offensive and actions taken against them, it is about the Hot Coffee mod, no more, no less. I think all info not related to the Hot Coffee mod (at least somewhat directly related) should be moved to a more appropriate page, i.e., the Bully information should be moved to the Bully page, etc... -- MacAddct1984 22:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is all of this has emerged as a reaction to the Hot Coffee mod. There is a pro-game and an anti-videogame debate that is going on as a result of the hype that Hot Coffee has created. What the article needs is a few more rewrites to get the information to connect together into a cohesive whole. Also, watch the news reports about the Peaceholics protest. They were complaining about San Andreas as well as Bully. Actually, the protestor in this video mentions San Andreas more than Bully.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_080205_videogameprotest.html

Also, even the demands specifically mention Grand Theft Auto. It's all inner connected together so I think it belongs in the article. Another thing. Scratch that last one. There is an article for Bully. - Anonymous

Did ESRB even look at the sex mini game

After seeing the sex mini game for myself . . . I don't think that they even bothered to check it out themselves. Most likley they simply buckled under pressure and to make the politicians happy they changed the rating. I sent them an e-mail to that effect and I hope to get a response shortly. TimeCruiserMike 10:25 8/8/05

Since ESRB investigated the patch, they must have seen it. But I believe the AO rating was because of R* trying to push the envelope between M and AO. Granted God of War hasn't been raised to AO as well, it only means GTA:SA really did cross ESRB's lines with all the other features, such as the dialog, and overall gameplay. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The ESRB specifically said that the rating was changed because of that scene. And when RockStar releases a new version of the game that eliminates Hot Coffee, they will gladly give back the M rating. I'm guessing that the majority of those at ESRB who gave the game the adult rating have only seen the PC Hot Coffee mod and only a few who were actaully investigating it's pressence on the consoles saw the console Hot Coffee. Have you noticed that every news program that has shown Hot Coffee foottage shows the PC version where the mod adds a nude skin to the girlfriend. Not one, that I have seen, shows what Hot Coffee looks like on the PS2 or X-Box. TimeCruiserMike 11:13 PM, August 15, 2005
Of course not it's a NEWS story, they always want the most horrifying view of possible... just like how footage during "GTA made me do it!" case reports shows nothing but cop-killing, more cop-killing, and some hooker-raping-then-killing-to-get-money-back on the side. The PC version is much easier to dump quality footage from via FRAPS or the like, but that still doesn't excuse them for not using the "authentic" models in their samples. I seem to recall the modder found those nude skins in the game, I don't know that he/they made them themselves... but maybe I'm wrong. GarrettTalk 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the readme file that came with my copy of the mod:
Quick Action Version
--------------------
This one has basicly the functionality of the first release:
  • You're dating every girlfriend from the beginning
  • Girlfriends are always available for dates
  • Girlfriends will have coffee with your after every date from the beginning.
  • You will be able to see what they do when they say that they're drinking coffee.
  • The "coffee drinking" is interactive, so you can proof yourself.
  • you will still be able to play all the missions and side-games.
supplemented with:
  • The girlfriends will now be completely nude during the coffee-drinking
  • Craig Kostelecky's "Opened Up" mod is included, which means:
- all barriers are removed
- all areas accessible without 4 star penalty
- most interiors accessible from the start (e.g. casino's)
So, no, it sounds like it was a fan mod, because the Hot Coffee mod itself consists of just changing a boolean in the save file. If I remember correctly, R* didn't even finish their own skins, and one of them (Michele?) was all garbled and screwed up. --Calamari 06:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Firstly, it's two lines of code in the main.scm file (the mission script), NOT the save game and secondly, the nude skins ARE included with V1 of the game, and work just fine.74.78.159.64 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Cohen

Florence Cohen 85 years old, bought her 14 year old grandson the game. When "Hot Coffee" was plastered all over the news she was one of the many that sued Rockstar. Does anybody know the verdict on the case? Hyperlinks please!

Michelle is not a bitch.

In the Mod Overview section, it says "The sexual minigame may well have been abandoned before completion, as suggested by the fact that one of the six girlfriends, Michelle, is flagrantly mistextured. Bitch"

So I removed the word bitch. :)

A likely overlooked POV statement or vandalism. Thanks for fixing this. :D ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Yup. Almost forgot my signature, so I thought I'd add it before I forgot. RexyRex 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

technically you already forgot it. many thanks for cleaning up the article!the juggreserection (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle is indeed not a bitch. But your topic title made me laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.252.43 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demeaning to women?

"While there may be merit to claims that it objectifies or demeans women, any assertions of rape are totally false."

I've obtained 100% completion in the game and got 100% relationship stats with all six girlfriends with and without "Hot Coffee" and I'm wondering if someone could clarify what exactly about the unused minigame is demeaning to women? The only possible arguement I could see having any validity are the things C.J. says to his girlfriends: he often blows them off and doesn't listen to what they say and pretty obviously doesn't care. While I think this in itself is highly debatable whether or not it "demeans women", it's important to note that this content is part of the unmodified game and has nothing to do with the sex minigame. Even the phrases C.J. and the girlfriends say during intercourse are present with the censor, albeit muffled versions of them. So what about the actual portions of the unlocked minigame objectifies or demeans women at all? They are both having sex with clothes on, why single out the women as the ones being demeaned? Is it because they are not the protagonist? pinky 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Changed to "Whether or not there is any merit..."; saying there "may be" merit is weasel POV. EdC 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Coffee spoofs

I don't see how the following paragraph describes something constituting a spoof: "I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator features a humorous sex scene involving Jack Thompson and characters from the game that can be accessed by using the Konami Code and pressing enter at the game's start screen." Either someone familiar with this scene should describe how this is a spoof of the Hot Coffee incident or the paragraph should be deleted. As it is, it sounds like something in another game that may be similar to what's described in this article, but it does not constitute a spoof/parody. DavidGC 12:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One week without comment. Am deleting portion. If explanation can be offered, please do so and re-add portion. DavidGC 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a little mug of steaming coffee next to the bed, which made the reference obvious. Maybe that should have been mentioned. That, and the game was made to make fun of Jack Thompson, one of the first to lash out against it, as well as controversy over video game content in general.

There's a car commercial that struck me as relating to Hot Coffee. A guy's taking his date home, puts his hand on her car, gets a strange flash of speed and intensity or whatever, and the girl pulls him away, saying something like "Not on a first date." She then invites him in for coffee. I almost laughed for five minutes; if the marketers meant that how they meant it, then that's saying something about how the girl values her car, you know?

Any way, I don't know if we would put that in the spoof section, but I want to know if anyone agrees with me. _mich 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add that. Getting together for "coffee" has always been codeword for getting it on and has been used many times before GTA. I think some of these "spoofs" aren't spoofs of the GTA minigame, but instead referring to the tired old nudge-nudge wink-wink of having coffee. 155.188.183.6 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Surfbruddah[reply]

Who wrote this?

This reads like Rockstar damage control, or more probably rockstars biggest fanboy. JayKeaton 09:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to describe any specific problems here. We're open to comments. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
One problen in the article is the implication that the nude models in the Hot Coffee mini-game were created by a third party and this is simply not true. These models for the females are available in the console version as well which in turn means that they are part of the origional code. This still does nothing to answer the riddle of why this mini-game was made at all and in fact raises even more questions. With this content, especially with the fact that it is inherently available in a nude version there is no way that the game would have gotten anything other than an AO rating. To date Sony has never endorsed a game with this rating and there is litte chance that they ever would. Why then would they go through all the work of creating a feature that they knew that they would never be able to release lagitimately. I feel that it must be that what this really is is about the most expensive practical joke in history raising the posibility that when R* put out in the beginning that this was a user mod they weren't simply trying to hide the truth but really though that that was the truth since the higher ups weren't in on the gag.--Hellfireboy 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was all the information regarding the console versions removed?

All the information regarding the 'mod' on the console versions has been removed without any explanation or linking to another article covering it. Looking around it appears that there is no other article purely for the console versions and the information should be in this one as it is relevent to the core subject.

It's kind of insane...

...how well-written this article is. Just thought I'd mention that. Toscaesque 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

This article isn't very neutral. The way it rants about "anti-video game activists" is the same way a pro-choice person rants about "anti-choice" people or a pro-life person rants about "anti-life" people. These people aren't against all video games per se, but against a handful of the most violent and explicit games. Maybe "video game content activist" would be a more neutral term. I made some changes, but it's still not enough. Personally, I think Jack Thompson is wrong, but Wikipedia must take a neutral stance, not lending any more credibility to the "pro-gamers" who are "fighting back" than to Thompson.

Also, I can't find a reliable source where Jack Thompson compared the ESA guy to Hitler. One GameSpot article says something along the lines of, "Jack Thompson once made headlines for comparing Lowenstein to Hitler", but I haven't been able to find any of those headlines. What was his exact quote? I put up a "citation needed" pending a link to a reliable source with a direct quote.

24.199.113.215 10:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. This article makes no mention of the fact that the content was not meant to be accessable to the public. 68.42.213.177 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

odd sentence

"Jak X: Combat Racing features an unlockable dubbed 'Hot Coffee' that stars Daxter and his girlfriend Tess."

Features an unlockable? Is unlockable a noun I don't know about? Anyway, it just confuses me and maybe someone should change it.


Context

I think it would be good if someone added a paragraph describing how common it is that unused content is contained in a game program's (or software in general) data and provide a few notable examples. I mean, pretty much every software designer for every software project has components that are being worked on and end up uncompleted or otherwise unused when the decision is made to finish the project. I don't know why, and perhaps somebody else can explain, but it seems that it's easier for programmers to leave this unused content in their software and simply lock it away (prevent the user from accessing it) rather than removing it from the game program completely. In video games, the content turns out to be unifinished levels, extra characters, extra items, extra dialogue, and any manner of other things. Gamers often discover these by using hacking devices or exploiting glitches. The software designer decides not to use these things usually because they could not be completed properly in time, but it could be for other reasons. For instance, I'm sure Rockstar initially intended Hot Coffee to be part of the final game, but then someone inside the company (or TakeTwo) decided that they shouldn't have this game in there after all because it might not pass for an 'M' rating. So they lock it away (as I said seems to be the normal procedure for software design, rather than actually removing the data, agian I don't know exactly why it's done this way), and not really being part of the game, the ESRB doesn't see this content.

So I'm pretty sure all, or most video games have unused content that the end players are not meant to ever find. However, in this case, the it happened to be sexually explicit. I do not believe that it was Rockstar's intention to hide this Hot Coffee minigame as some kind of joke or something. It was an idea that they decided not to use, and as standard industy practice goes, they just prevented access to it. They didn't actually delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olanmills (talk • contribs)

Good point most games do have unused content, even big blockbuster games like GTA:SA and HL2 (Half-Life 2). For example you can clip through a wall in Half-Life 2 and find an ammo box for the planned sniper rifle that was replaced with a crossbow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.202.46 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olanmills has the right idea. Read this article here on the subject: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=226 The article is about 99.9% correct; the only mistake is not accounting for the Action Replay, which is, itself, a hacking device. I'm tempted to link it as a source on the actual article.

Also, the language of the article itself in the "Minigame overview and Hot Coffee mod" section is somewhat misleading/deceptive. It makes no mention of how the minigame was functionally impossible to access on the console versions prior to the discovery on the PC version. Had the content not been found on the PC version, no one would have known about it since it is impossible to view the game's code on the console versions. This means that the only way it could have been found would be to randomly stumble on the correct 24-digit alphanumeric code -which is hand-entered by the player, not automatically generated- in the Action Replay menu; a code which produces no visible effect until the relevant point in the game is reached and has no immediately discernibly pattern unless one has non-common knowledge on how said codes work. And, again, had the PC content not been found, no one would have known that there was a code to enter in the first place. The only way it could have been found otherwise would be for someone to randomly enter the one combination in 2.24x10^37 possible combinations that enables the minigame.

Specifically, I take issue with the sentences "However, this claim was undermined when a hacker known as N.A.V.A.I.D G, on July 12, 2005, released an "Action Replay Power Save" for the Xbox console, and codes for the PlayStation 2 Action Replay game enhancer that allowed the scenes to be accessed in each of the console versions" and "The PC mod itself is actually just an edited copy of the game script files with a single bit changed. The mod was also made possible on the console versions, by changing the bit inside a user's saved game file or by using a third-party modding device". The phrase "However, this claimed was undermined when" seems to imply that R*'s claim that the content was found through " 'significant technical modifications to and reverse engineering' the game's code" is deliberately false, and the latter two sentences create the impression that enabling the content was as simple as opening a few files and changing a single number. This is incorrect, as the original discovery of the content would involve one of two things:

Either:

1)Sifting though the compiled code of the game -an enormous mass of numbers- a few bytes at a time until randomly stumbling upon the few bytes that say "use these assets in the manner", then finding single byte that disables the content, then changing that byte. Note that this would require a level of knowledge on machine-readable code that is extremely non-common.

or

2)Decompiling the game and reading through the source code until the lines about the minigame were discovered, then changing those lines, then recompiling the game. Note that not only are decompilers by-and-large illegal, but they also render the source code into something that can be completely illegible. Quoting from Wikipedia's own article on Decompilers:

mov eax, [ebx+0x04]

may appear as

eax := m[ebx+4];

after being decompiled. Again, an extremely non-common amount of skill would be required to preform this.

The language of the sentences I quoted above implies that this act was not accomplished though the use of enormous amounts of time, effort, skill, luck, and possibly an illegal program.

To that effect, I'd like to remove/change the language that implies this false ease, and perhaps add some information on how difficult and unlikely the actual process was. I'd also like to change the name of the article to "Hot Coffee hack", since "hack" in more accurate than "mod" in this case, but I realize that might be pushing it. I'll leave the page alone for a few days so people can comment on what I've said/give me valid reason not to change it, and then I'll start rewriting the objectionable parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.22.201 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Completley Insane

I know it has been a while since this issue was brought into the spotlight, but it is never too late to say how COMPLETLEY INSANE all of this is. Other than the fact that there is a little difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old both physically and mentally (and thus the stupidity with the M and AO ratings), why the hell are people going so crazy over absolutely NOTHING! You can do horrific violent acts in this game and no one cared about its M-rating. Now since there is a very crappy mini-game with sex everything becomes bad. WTF? GROW UP AMERICA, GROW UP! It is things like this that make me feel ashamed being an American. What the bloody hell is wrong with a mini-sex game compared to the rest of the violent content? It is no wonder why America is one of the most violent countries in the world. It isn't because of the violent video games, it is because America can so easily tolerate violence but can't stand sex. They can't stand seeing people make love because hate and violence is so embroiled in the daily lives of this country. They fear sex as much as they fear their fellow man. Anyone who thinks sex is worse than violence is INSANE! Period. End of story. (No offence, just my opinion). And these religious nuts and politicians make things even worse. Zachorious 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well theres one crucial flaw in your debate. Before I state it though, I'd just like to point out that i thought it was retarded that they rerated the game over that since M is equal to R and you can show what this game showed in an R rated film only with nudity. The flaw in your debate though is that sex and violence are completely different. Violence for the sake of violence is untolerated (usually) and disgusts most people. Thats why so many violent films are either banned or just tank in teh box office, because they have violence for the sake of violence without any comic relief. What most people do now are enjoy violence for the sake of good vs evil. Then its a classic battle of good vs evil, and the violence is mearly the instrumanet with which they do it (some films have people be verbal or mental with their battle of good vs evil, its all just a different way to do the same thing). Sex and nudity however isn't used for anything other than the pleasure of watching it. On top of that, sex and nudity is more addictive than violence. Most people who watch violence can go through their life without commiting anythign violent (crime rates are rising, but i personally think that can be linked to things other than films and games. different discusion though). however, people who watch sex and nudity almost always let that lead to something worse. First you watch some nudity, then you start to search for it, then you mastribate to it, then you have to have actual sex. In fact, in a few cases (not to many, just some) that sex then leads to angry sex, then murdering, then torturing other humans and animals for pleasure. Violence doesn't lead to that (if handled properly). Take Gladiator for example. Very violent film, but the violence had a purpose. It was one man as he saught revenge against a cruel emperor for killing his family. Thats why people tolerate violence; its the classic battle of good vs evil while nudity is just sin for the sake of sin. DurotarLord 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are failing to realize how much culture influences such ideas of sex. Many cultures throughout history have viewed sex as just a part of life, and not some evil thing that should be banned in public. The idea that sex leads to immorality and "sin" (whatever you mean by "sin") is based off the Judeo-Christian notion that sex is an evil dirty human activity. Then there is nudity.....that is a different thing altogether. In Christian cultures nudity has to do with sex, but in many other cultures it is just a part of life. Violence has however always been looked down upon by all societies in non-self defense issues, especially when forced upon another person. A fundamental difference between sex and violence is that violence causes real physical pain and damage towards others, while sex is like anything else not harmful unless it is forced (like any other non-violent activity) upon another person.

If we approach politics from a religious perspective, this will lead to a theocracy. Sex should be treated as equally as anything else. There is nothing "magical" or "mystical" about sex. There are no scientific studies that show that greater sexuality leads to greater violence. In fact in countries like Japan where issues of sex and sexuality are more relaxed and less taboo, violent crime is FAR less. Zachorious 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo,
could you show a biblical source for your view that it is "Judeo-Christian notion that sex is an evil dirty human activity"? I was under the impression that in Judaism & Christianity love & sex were regulated like in ANY other human society - meaning there was morally "good" and "bad" or "sinful" sexual behaviour. The view that sex in itself was bad at any case came in only later, but was never part of the religion itself, though it was regrettably adapted by some Christian organisations. Single life though was recommended by both Jesus and the Apostle Paul.
love, xymx 77.117.253.252 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed out quite a few un-needed and pointless external links, and am putting this here so people that find that I accidentally removed a link I shouldn't have, forgot to remove one, etc have a place to tell me. previously it was a mass of links that were mostly clutter or unrelated and had a cleanup tag above it. thank you. Yadaman 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, the section was just spamming the article. If you like trimming unnecessary external links, don't forget to visit Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

What is the point of this section? It merely states someone's opinion. Would anyone care to expand on it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishaddatta (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to Hot Coffee minigame controversy per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Coffee mod → Hot Coffee controvesy — The mod itself doesn't appear to be the actual center of the controvesy. In fact, much of the attention and criticism are towards the hidden minigame, San Andreas and Rockstar Games. The title also sidelines the methods used on game consoles versions (cheating devices, not mods) to unlock the minigame. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

  2. Oppose - the new title would be misleading - it makes me think of that woman who sued the crap out of Mcdonalds 10 years ago for spilling hot coffee on herself. Try something else, like Hot Coffee mod controversy. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. How about Hot Coffee minigame controversy? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
    Sounds good; feel free to make the move, I guess. Patstuart 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not an "anti-video game" person.

Although some may perceive he is, he, in reality, is not. Thompson is only against video games he finds objectionable, such as violent games, sexual content games, etc. This is not ALL video games. There are educational video games too with none of the content he perceives to be objectionable. Heyfunboy 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Heyfunboy[reply]

Ok. Oggleboppiter 10:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has made that claim but then he has also spoke agianst the sims.Also he does hate gamers because he has said something long the lines of "gamers should play a suicide simulator and get real good at it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.1.137 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of EULA

This article states the Hot Coffee mod, and any mod which modifies the main.scm file is not a breach of the EULA (End User License Agreement). Since creating a modified scm file decompliling and recompiling and, inherently distributing that file, which Take Two publically stated against the EULA (and it sounds like if it's the City EULA, they're right, then it would be a breach of the EULA.

Anyone have any evidence that it isn't? The article's defense is Rockstar's support for the mod community general - but that in itself isn't directed at the EULA and hardly counts as a factual answer. Vote for a change in wording. --Inkless 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The second paragraph of the lead starts out, "The minigame portrays simulated sexual intercourse..." Is the minigame really meant to depict characters simulating sexual intercourse? The minigame either is simulated sex, or it portrays sex. Any comments before I change it? Eleven even (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late, but: It portrays dry humping. Dry humping is simulated sexual intercourse, thus the mod depicts characters simulating sexual intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.120.131 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of creator wrong

I'm PatrickW, and I would just like to point out that my age is wrong in this article. I'm born in 1969, currently 39 thus. As I'm not going to edit content about myself, I leave it upto someone else. (My age has been reported correctly in almost all article from the time of the controversie, (just as a reference). ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.70.242 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Edition Patch?

I've heard many rumors that people are working on releasing a mod for the new releases that would reinsert the deleted Rockstar code. Has anyone heard anything more about this, and if so, why hasn't it been released yet? Coolgamer (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Coffee patch does not involve nudity?

The article is wrong under "Minigame overview and Hot Coffee mod": "None of the six possible sex scenes involve any nudity ..." when it DOES: see http://www.gametrailers.com/player/6810.html 77.117.253.252 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) xymx[reply]

Well. The problem is people made several variations of the mod, all of them with basically the same name. I think the original mod that kicked off this little party, made by Patrick, did not use the nude textures. Then someone discovered that the girlfriends had nude textures in the peds file and made an updated mod that used them. Most (all?) of the subsequent variations did the same. So, the line is accurate but only for the original mod. Rooker75 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I was wondering what point the picture being there serves. The article states that there is no nudity from the actual hot coffee mod as does the picture, so why do they add the nude girls mod on top of it. Is this Simply to make the mod seem worse than it all ready is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethmagis (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the article be any poorer if it didn't have the image at all? Astronaut (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "nude girls modification" is not present in the image. Her clothes are on, they're just very very white. Also, read this. --   GameShowKid – talk – evidence   16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about the "nude girls modification" and I am quite aware Wikipedia is not censored, but what does the current image add to the article? Astronaut (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the person before you. I just accidentally used two indentations, making it seem like I was replying to you. Sorry about that. --   GameShowKid – talk – evidence   04:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hot Coffee mod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hot Coffee mod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hot Coffee mod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hot Coffee mod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source dump

Extended content

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Page is clearly the primary topic by pageviews. Views have vastly eclipsed the other potential topics for "Hot Coffee" that are not a partial title match. Even when the controversy was not relevant earlier this year, page views were numerous times that of the film, the next highest topic in popularity. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 February 2022

Hot Coffee (mod) → Hot Coffee (minigame) – This article discusses two things: a sexual intercourse minigame and a mod that unlocks said minigame. The main subject of this article is the minigame. The development, controversy, all revolve around the minigame. Several sentences in the article erroneously referred to the minigame as "mod", meanwhile the mod itself is sometimes referred as "patch". Neocorelight (Talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Neocorelight (Talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: This makes perfect sense to me. The lead sentence even says "'Hot Coffee is an unofficial name for a minigame in the 2004 video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's really strange to call it a mod given that it's a minigame that was apparently built into the original game. The only modding involved is someone basically "activating" the code for the minigame. And as stated by others, it's really not about that mod, it's about the minigame itself. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The thing that was named "hot coffee" was the mod that unlocked it. Given that we have to disambiguate this, "mod" makes the most sense. We have no idea what Rockstar called the minigame. --Masem (t) 01:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting point, but it doesn't matter what Rockstar called the minigame, it matters what the minigame is called by sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick scan of the sources produces no clear result there - it seems the name is used interchangeably to refer to the game and the mod that unlocks the game. If it's decided that "Hot Coffee (mod)" is the correct title for the article then the article body (such as the lead sentence I quoted above) needs to be altered to reflect that. Popcornfud (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then going that around, there are actual two better names (given sourcing I was just doing): Hot Coffee scandal or Hot Coffee controversy (eg in either case, dropping the parenthetical) Both are terms used in the sourcing, though I think the latter is more neutral as it was less a "scandal" after all was said and done. --Masem (t) 02:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The (unnofficial) name of the minigame is Hot Coffee as RSs call it, this name is taken from the mod that unlocked it, which in turn is taken from in-game slang for sex. The subject of this article is the minigame and per COMMONNAME, its title is Hot Coffee. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the current title is unrepresentative of the content because the mod is not the subject of the article. We certainly wouldn't title this article "Cut sexual intercourse minigame in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". Neocorelight (Talk) 02:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Popcornfud's response to Masem. Sources overwhelmingly use the term "Hot Coffee" to refer to the minigame itself rather than the fan-made patch, so we should too. JOEBRO64 02:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources overwhelmingly use the term "Hot Coffee" to refer to the minigame itself I just wanna make sure that's definitely true. I only did a very quick source check, and the results were mixed based on that, so don't just take my word on it. Popcornfud (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a cursory glance at recent sources that brought up the conundrum due to its discovery in the Definitive Edition collection, and they refer to the minigame itself as Hot Coffee: Nintendo Life ("Hot Coffee was a naughty hidden minigame..."), Video Games Chronicle ("... files claimed by users to be related to the infamous, canned San Andreas sex mini-game 'Hot Coffee'"), IGN ("... it also appears to contain files related to the infamous sex mini-game 'hot coffee'"), and Eurogamer ("Dataminers have discovered code relating to the infamous Hot Coffee mini-game..."). I think it's safe to say that the name "Hot Coffee", in the decade-and-a-half since the controversy, is now generally used to refer to the minigame itself rather than the patch that was created to unlock it. I think "Hot Coffee (mod)" was an acceptable name when the article was first created, because "Hot Coffee" was the name of the mod. But times change, and I think these sources serve as a testament to that. JOEBRO64 03:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hot_Coffee_(minigame)&oldid=1072039895"