GTA modding tool OpenIV shut down by legal threat

Take-Two’s lawyers have allegedly shut down OpenIV, one of the main tools for modding Grand Theft Auto IV and V. The OpenIV team say they’ve received a ‘cease and desist’ letter from The Suits saying that OpenIV lets people bypass security features and modify the game, which violates Take-Two’s rights and must be stopped. And so, the team have announced they’ll stop distributing the tool. I’m sure it’ll still float around the Internet unofficially, but this is a terrible loss.

OpenIV is the tool people use to fiddle in GTA’s data files, changing and adding models, textures, and other assets. Not every mod uses OpenIV but Take-Two shutting it down is a huge blow to GTA modding. It’s a modding scene which creates everything from movie-making to gang wars and Iron Man.

The OpenIV team say they’ve received a cease and desist letter saying that, with the tool, they “allow third parties to defeat security features of its software and modify that software in violation Take-Two’s rights”. They will not fight this. They explain:

“Yes, we can go to court and yet again prove that modding is fair use and our actions are legal.

“Yes, we could. But we decided not to.

“Going to court will take at least few months of our time and huge amount of efforts, and, at best, we’ll get absolutely nothing.

“Spending time just to restore status quo is really unproductive, and all the money in the world can’t compensate the loss of time.

“So, we decided to agree with their claims and we’re stopping distribution of OpenIV.

“It was a hard decision, but when any modding activity has been declared illegal, we can’t see any possibilities to continue this process, unless top management of Take-Two company makes an official statement about modding, which can be used in court.”

This would be an unpleasant move at the best of times but good grief, OpenIV is hardly a secret Take-Two have just discovered. The first version came out for Grand Theft Auto IV in 2011, and GTA V support launched in 2015. The Suits let a modding scene grow and thrive, then years later swoop in to stop it.

This timing might have something to do with OpenIV’s work on a tool to import Liberty City from GTA IV into GTA V.The head of OpenIV says that initial contact with the suits, back in April, did demand that they stop working on and distributing both OpenIV and the (unreleased) Liberty City tool. That tool would require copies of both games as it’s a converter rather than a conversion. But perhaps smooshing games together tipped The Suits over the edge, sending them into a blood rage. The ways of The Suits are inscrutable. Some say they’re not even human, that they don’t even inhabit our world, that they live outside time and beyond hope, joy, and pity. You’ll have to ask Some about that though.

Or perhaps it’s connected to Grand Theft Auto Online, GTA V’s multiplayer, which is still rife with hackers. OpenIV has strictly avoided touching GTA Online but ah, who knows the minds of The Suits?

Disclosure: I vaguely know several people who work on GTA but none of them intimately enough to have any fun anecdotes. Sorry.


  1. gwop_the_derailer says:

    Car Stealers Lawyer Up.

  2. ColonelFlanders says:

    Wow. The company that just bought KSP is now sending cease and desists to modders. Fuck my fucking life

    • poliovaccine says:

      Oh wow, I didnt even think of that angle… I *really* hope this doesnt become a general precedent.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      There’s some big differences between modding GTA and KSP though. I suspect most of The Suit’s problem was modding tools being used to cheat in GTA Online (where they are making a nice living selling in game cash cards).
      KSP on the other hand has such a history of modding, that several modders have ended up in the development team.
      KSP also has the advantage of being almost unknown in the wider world. If a modder created a baby kicking mod for GTA, it could well end up in the Daily Mail and cause the Suits no end of PR problems. Do the same for KSP and pretty much no one will notice.

      • poliovaccine says:

        I mean yeah, but there are differences between any two games, and what concerns me most is the symbolic precedent of interfering with modders who do their work out of passion, as a hobby, for free. There could very easily be a KSP modding tool developed sometime down the line, which modders may come to rely on, and which is then taken out from under em by the company over concerns that it bypasses or undermines any number of things they may deem important (security measures, potential profit on some planned DLC concept where modders have beaten em to the punch, etc).

        Also, I agree about the practical differences – except for the notion that this is in response to GTA Online, since OpenIV’s devs have explicitly stayed away from that hornet’s nest. I know one guy personally who used to hack GTA Online (until his griefing ass got permabanned, not just by his copy’s ID, but also by IP and MAC address – and not just from GTAO but *any* iteration of Social Club – haha, his dick self deserved it too) and he in no way relied on OpenIV to do his hacking. I dont know anything about it, cus I’m neither into multiplayer nor a douchebag, but from his description I dont think OpenIV really had any application there. I may be wrong, but even if that were the case, it’d seem like an abdication of responsibility to punish modders for hacking, rather than addressing it more directly – i.e. not closing the loopholes in the code on their end, but instead trying to prevent people from reaching those still-existing loopholes, and destroying a huge, peripheral modding scene in the process. In particular because, were that the case, another tool would just come along to replace it and take advantage of the same holes.

        Everything you say about GTA vs KSP is true, but as far as the broader precedent of shutting down modders, not even for making any kind of profit from their game (which would be pretty inappropriate), but rather by some perceived loss of *potential* profit, well, it concerns me just the same. Like I say, not for any existing facet of KSP modding, or that of any other game, but more because these kinds of modding tools are as common as they are valuable in those communities, and I’d hate to see that change. It would be a real shame if, say, one day modding tools were licensed and put up for the price of some DLC on Steam – mainly because the financial roadblock would grossly stifle collaboration and creativity, even if the download only cost a buck.

        Everything you say is true, but none of it really makes me any less bummed about this move, or any less concerned for future modding, at least under Take Two.

        • brucethemoose says:

          Bethesda Game Studio modding tools (Creation Kit, GECK etc.) are technically free DLC. They’re also buggy, and after Bethesda’s E3 I can already see a path to that dystopian future you describe.

      • ElementalAlchemist says:

        I suspect most of The Suit’s problem was modding tools being used to cheat in GTA Online

        Except that’s not what OpenIV does. Online cheating is all memory hacks. OpenIV is a set of tools for extracting and modifying the game’s archives for single player mods. It has nothing to do with online stuff (they go out of their way to prevent that for precisely this sort of reason).

      • Levarien says:

        From what I understand, though, Open IV is a single player modding tool only. Everything that makes GTA Online such a hackers paradise is done through simple dll file injection, since the service uses simple mesh peer to peer services rather than dedicated servers.

        • MajorLag says:

          Wait, seriously? It’s freaking, what, 2017, and some developer who wanted to have a pay-to-win online game decided to use a peer-to-peer netcode model?

          You may as well be a bank that stores all its cash in a big pile in the middle of the lobby with a sign that says “please don’t touch” next to it.

          • poliovaccine says:

            *checks watch*

            My god, it IS 2017!

            I’ve been asleep for ONE HUNDRED YEEEARS

      • Not_So_Melancholy says:

        The important thing to note though is OpenIV’s creators put pieces in place to make sure it could ONLY be used in singleplayer since they knew R* wouldn’t like it much if it could be used in their Online.

      • Augh_lord says:

        We need to add that the mod community had build the option to allow multiplayer gaming on private servers so you can play with mods and friends.

        I bought GTAV just to play copper mods..

        • poliovaccine says:

          That reminds me… remember MTA? Multi Theft Auto? Before there was ever GTA Online, there was multiplayer Vice City (I think there was a GTA3 version too but dont quote me on that), entirely created by modders.

          Not that anything there means anything for OpenIV – just wanna point out the degree of precedent being destroyed here, as well as the level of free work, publicity, lifespan and market-testing modding has been good for, not just in games overall, but in terms of the GTA series in specific.

          As in, nobody at Rockstar ever thought anyone would *want* multiplayer GTA – I remember a statement, back around the time everyone was super hyped over GTA3, saying as much (I think in response to some clamoring on their forums for a future MP GTA). Modders demonstrated that yes there was, in fact, a market for it, and moreover, yes in fact it WAS possible (which was part B of the official line back then). Without the prototype made by those modders, their ultra-profitable GTA Online may very well have never existed. Here’s hoping they miss out on all kinds of great ideas like that in the future. Oh wait, but *we’re* the ones who’d miss out. Nice.

  3. titanomaquis says:

    The one reason PC players had to buy the PC version is gone. GTA V came out about a year later on PC, so by the time we were able to play it, everyone else had moved on. It’s baffling really, and I will probably skip Red Dead 2 and GTA VI if either come to PC.

    • Jane Doe says:

      Graphics? Field of view? Mouse controls? 60 FPS? Price?

      There is absolutly no reason to buy console versions except being a lazy couch potato who just wants to shut of its brain.

      • poliovaccine says:

        That’s… incredibly flattering of PC gaming in general. I agree that there are more reasons than mods to opt for a PC version over a console one, but I hardly think demanding 60FPS or slightly better graphics makes you a smarter and more ambitious human being than console players… I mean PC master race and all but yeesh..!

      • titanomaquis says:

        I could have bought GTA on console cheaper by buying a used disc. It took a while for the price to come down on PC. Playing on PC get’s you mouse support, sure. The rest depends on your PC, though I get what you are saying. I should Have said that Modding is “my only reason for playing on PC.”

        I don’t know what playing on a console has to do with “being a lazy couch potato who just wants to shut of its brain.”

        • Premium User Badge

          Drib says:

          “I don’t know what playing on a console has to do with “being a lazy couch potato who just wants to shut of its brain.””

          It’s because PC Master Race healthily runs in place while using mouse and keyboard from their flying space ships made of solidified mastery.

          Yeah I don’t know either.

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        I played a lot of GTAV on console, and then ended up getting it for PC, so here’s my thoughts:
        graphics/field of view/refresh rate
        Well, going from the 360 version to my nice gaming PC certainly looked a bit better when it was stopped, but once you’re playing it’s barely noticeable. About the only part of the graphics that affects the gameplay is the draw distance. As for refresh rate, if it’s above 30fps, who cares? FoV ditto.
        Mouse controls: better for shooting, about on par for driving, and much, much worse for flying. A gamepad makes switching between the different control schemes (on foot, car, flying etc) much easier.
        Price: well, it was cheap on console, and almost full price on PC when I bought it. These days I assume it’s cheap everywhere.

        • fish99 says:

          None of the console versions run as well or look as good as the PC version. And yes mouse aiming makes the game a lot more fun. Also I paid £40 for the PS3 version and £16 for the PC one (both on launch day).

          As for flying, you can drive on mouse/keyboard and fly on a pad if you want, it’s seamless.

        • Vitz says:

          I care about 30+ FPS. 30 is acceptable, but doubling that makes a huge difference. Also, lots of people care about FoV. It’s nauseating for some if the FoV is too narrow and they’re right in front of the screen.

        • ludde says:

          As for refresh rate, if it’s above 30fps, who cares? FoV ditto.

          Yeah that might just be you.

          • Slazia says:

            30fps is awful for anything 3D. 120fps or go home!

          • sleepisthebrotherofdeath says:

            30fps is perfectly fine … if that is all you have ever known.
            Personally, I think 30fps looks a stuttery mess.
            But, I run GTA at around 105fps with on G-SYNC monitor.

    • zaldar1978 says:

      Not having to own a console that you don’t need or use for anything else? And so it came out after “other” people had moved on…um so what? I play a game to enjoy it myself – not to be part of some silly group playing the game at the same time. I could care less what other people are playing.

    • Shadowtail says:

      What kind of person would buy GTAV just for the modding? You don’t speak for everyone when you say that. I hate modding myself, and I fully support (and am glad for) Take-Two’s decision.

      • Kolbex says:

        What possible reason can you have for hating single player modding and be “glad” that someone else can’t do something you were never forced to do?

        • ColonelFlanders says:

          I wouldn’t bother twisting your melon over it. It’s basically clear that he’s saying moronic shit to get an argument happening. Best thing to do is walk away and let him fizzle out.

  4. Haxton Fale says:

    “Spending time just to restore status quo is really unproductive, and all the money in the world can’t compensate the loss of time.

    wait what
    Unproductive? Making sure that one of the tenets of PC gaming is not destroyed because a company wants to abuse the legal system is unproductive?

    • ColonelFlanders says:

      I think they meant unproductive on a personal level. Going toe to toe with TakeTwo would ruin them, regardless of the result. I respect their motives for stepping back from this one. Take Two however can suck my plums.

      • Kaeoschassis says:

        Yeah, exactly. Anyone can see how it’s a good thing to fight stuff like this if you feel you CAN, but if they don’t feel that they’re able then we really have no right to hold that against them. It’s a hell of a thing to have to go through.

    • poliovaccine says:

      From their perspective, yeah… I donno if you’ve ever had to fight anything in court before, but they’re understating the hassle if anything – in particular because they dont even mention, yknow, *the money.*

      • Christo4 says:

        time=money so they mentioned it in a way?

        • poliovaccine says:

          In a way, but I mean moreso that legal fees are not exactly negligible. They could have harped on that point a lot more if they’d wanted.

        • Kolbex says:

          No, time does not equal money. That’s always been a meaningless statement.

      • Otterley says:

        Money’s too tight to mention.

    • Emeraude says:

      They didn’t sign up for this. Simple as that.

      They just wanted to use some of their free time, in their corner, to make something they love better for everyone. Not go to war with a rapacious company.

      There’s what looks like a weird trend to me of people being dissed for not acting like exemplars, instead of being celebrated when they do. Like it’s become a normal, expected thing.

      • zaldar1978 says:

        It was rather obvious when you look at the terms of service (which YES you should do) that what they are doing is against them – so yes by doing this they signed up to take on the company. Intellectual property needs to be respected much more than it is around these parts.

        • Emeraude says:

          If anything, I’d say quite the contrary if anything: IP laws need to be hit down a good bit.

        • MajorLag says:

          Have you read your average ToS? More than half that shit would never hold up in court and is just boilerplate CYA nonsense.

          • Dark_Ronius says:

            Reminds me of the first ToS/EULA Google bundled with Chrome… Which seemed to imply Google would own anything you write or upload through the browser

      • Haxton Fale says:

        There’s what looks like a weird trend to me of people being dissed for not acting like exemplars, instead of being celebrated when they do. Like it’s become a normal, expected thing.

        My memory is pretty bad, so please help me jog it a bit. Has anyone actually stood up to the company? I seem to only recall everyone rolling over.

  5. something says:

    Add this to the list of reasons why microtransactions are devaluing games as products. GTA V with mods is worth a hell of a lot more to me than GTA V with microtransactions.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      But sadly to the investment companies (not necessarily dev teams or indie programmers, as these investment companies could drop those like flies without remorse!) the DLC is worth so much more, that they can give away the software these days.

      While a lot of F2P systems are exhausted/crowded markets making little money, there are still big winners. There also seems to be MORE money to be made by first “tricking” (I use that lightly, as most often do have content pre/front-loaded) customers to first invest in a game/media/service… then after they are fully committed (and sometimes months or years after) bait and switch to DLC/service pricing and gouging.

      It’s being done/been done for years, just in other ways. It use to be, good things got fans. Now companies are trying to “buy” the fans (see Disney buying Star Wars), and it’s down to who has the money, the artists or the accountants, as to what quality or not we get for our purchases.

      • Dark_Ronius says:

        I hope a similar thing happens to DLC that happened when MMORPG’s were all the rage as money-spinners…

        Well, at least the games industry grew out of its “online pass” obsession…

  6. Christo4 says:

    Another couple of “suits” trying to ruin something that actually helps a games’ continuity: modding.

    And if that’s not enough, or they expect too much backlash from it, or they think the game already gathered enough copies, there’s another new thing that will happen: paid mods. Because we can’t have free user made content without some getting milked a bit now can we.

    • zaldar1978 says:

      The people making the mods deserve to be paid for it and the people who originally made the base game deserve a cut of what is allowing the modders to make money.

      • something says:

        The modders weren’t asking to be paid, and Take Two would probably have sued long ago if they did. But there are situations where modders ask for money and most people think that’s fine. It’s when publishers barge in and insist that modders ask for money and can we have a cut of it please, that folks get antsy.

        Take Two got paid for the thing they made when they put it in a shop with a price tag on. The fact that third parties are working to make that thing more valuable for free does not suddenly entitle Take Two to more money. What it does is help Take Two continue to sell an aging product, and if that were their primary source of income they would surely be grateful. Instead they make their money from selling horse armour via a fake currency, so they view modders as competition.

        That’s the problem here. Their most enthusiastic customers are their competition, and they shut them down with legal threats. Gaming is a community business and treating your community like this is really stupid.

        • poliovaccine says:

          Well said. Given the totally bizarre reasoning this particular poster presents for backing Take Two’s decision here (“modders should be paid for their work/what they did is clearly against the terms of service”) I can only assume this is a case of someone just trying to be on the winning team.

      • SaintAn says:

        Don’t talk about things you don’t understand, little corporation worshiper.
        If you choose to mod then you are doing it because you want to. It’s not a job, it’s a hobby, and monitizing it is bad for everyone and will ruin it like money has ruined everything else it has touched. If you want to make money make a game or go get some other job. That’s how RimWorld and that Civil War Gettysburg games got made, as well as others, modders decided to make a game.

        Corporations should be grateful I’m buying their games instead of pirating them. No, they don’t deserve any money beyond what I pay to buy them. Bethesda/Zeni is on my pirate list now.

  7. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    Well at least Take Two is protecting their income by banning the only thing that makes people buy their damn game.

    I feel like large businesses just don’t get how the internet works. Or how people work. Or how anything works.

    So yeah! Go Take Two! Fight that community that keeps people buying your stuff! Then you’ll be the winners for sure!

    • brucethemoose says:

      I think you’re over-estimating how many people are affected by this.

      A fraction (between 1/4 and 1/2?) of the IV/V player base (aka total sales) plays PC. A fraction of that (spit balling… Let’s be generous and say 1/4) uses mods. A fraction of them still play AND spend money on DLC, and most of those are content playing old mods.

      From 2K’s perspective, this hardly puts a dent in their sales.

      Alot of people said the same thing about Minecraft when M$ bought it, but had they killed Forge development, it wouldn’t even affect 1% of their user base.

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        You’re probably right.

        I’m just sour about companies shitting on the people who buy and enjoy their products.

        There’s no legitimate reason for it, though they’ll claim it’s to strengthen their copyright. It’s just shitting on people for the hell of it.

        • brucethemoose says:

          2 things:

          A: They aren’t malicious, to them its not “shitting on people”. Their IP, sales, players… It’s all just numbers on a spreadsheet or a PowerPoint. And on a spreadsheet, a community modding suite looks alot like a hacking tool that threatens their IP, especially when their marketing guys see 3rd party stuff on twitch and the lawyers mention something vague about it.

          B: The people who made this call aren’t devs. Or testers. Hell, they probably never touched a game console or a gaming PC in their life. They have no concept of what a community modding tool even is. Telling them that killing it is wrong is like telling your dog that eating a live squirrel is immoral and wrong: they don’t even have a mental image of the base of your argument.

          I know that sounds cynical, but I dont think it’s far from reality.

          • Premium User Badge

            Drib says:

            Except, unlike the dog, they can be taught. If they’d asked the rest of the company, or even consulted with anyone, they might realize that this is a bad PR move and a bad move in general.

            But instead they fire off nonsense and ruin a good thing, just to look like they’re being useful.

            Don’t get me wrong, I get what you’re saying. These people don’t understand how games work, or how people think, which is what I said to start with. They’re doing their jobs, as lawyers.

            But I just feel like maybe at the point where your game company is acting counter to gaming in general, it might be time to reconsider the direction of your game company.

          • poliovaccine says:

            Very rarely does anyone do anything purely out of malice, save for cartoon villains, agreed. But just because, to them, it isnt “shitting on people” doesnt mean the entire modding community dependent on that tool didnt just get shat on.

            I’ve often heard people express off variants of, “I’m not being an asshole, I’m just being honest!” And they may sincerely believe that “hard truths need to be expressed.” Still doesnt mean you go calling the fat girl fat – still makes her leave the room and cry.

            Right now, a bunch of us are in the “crying” stage, but only because “leaving the room” isnt quite so simple in this scenario. If I could refund my copies of GTAIV and GTAV over this I’d damn well do it.

            *Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you, above poster, of being an asshole. Just drawing a parallel between that attitude and the stance that, just because Take Two see nothing wrong with this, there is nothing wrong.

      • Caiman says:

        I guess we’ll find out if GTA V disappears from the Steam top sellers charts over the next few weeks.

    • TheVerySpecialK says:

      Instead of asking “how can I give back to this community,” the corporate mantra is “let’s strip-mine these sheep and move on to the next.” Never mind sustainability, it’s all about the short-term: profits, profits, profits. Let’s boost that share price and profit! Did I mention PROFIT? PROFIT IS THE NEW PROPHET! PROFIT ‘AKBAR! Now excuse me while I detonate my suicide profit vest in the midst of this vibrant modding community.

  8. poliovaccine says:

    Wow. These guys have been really shitty to modders lately. So they say OpenIV allows people to bypass security features… are they worried that OpenIV will somehow make their game more open to piracy than it already was? I mean, I’m thinking back to the weekly Steam charts here on RPS and thinking, fer chrissake, have they not made enough money already? Are they not making enough still?
    Those figures were always in spite of the inevitable amount of piracy. Hard to see it from that angle.

    Also, the article specifically says OpenIV has stayed away from GTA Onlime, so it’d be awfully hard as well to say this is in the interest of promoting fairness in the online play (as if banning any one tool would stop hackers in general).

    Baffling and inscrutable indeed. This seems more symbolic than practical, if anything. The Red Dead Redemption mod shutdown was equally screwballs – in that case, there wasnt even an official PC release to claim it undermined. Maybe they really believe that, if they hold out long enough, people will buy a console just to play that one game? I cant help but think they’d make their motives clearer if they were more clearly defensible and justified.

    But that’s not even applicable here. I know I’m not privy to all the details making up their perspective, but lacking any better explanation, this cant help but feel to me like a textbook case of, “Hey! Hands off! That’s MINE!!”

    I dont even play the GTAs anymore, but as a modder and a huge fan of modding as a practice in general, this seems worryingly like they’re trying to establish a new, far less tolerant precedent. And it’s totally asinine, because modding is very often a big part of what players look forward to or love about a game – and if a game has an especially long lifespan, it’s almost always because mods are forever extending it.

    Seems short-sighted at best, and at worst, just petty and rude.

  9. Emeraude says:

    Another example if needed be of how it doesn’t matter if you’re being given a right if you can’t defend it.

  10. fish99 says:

    From a timing point-of-view this could be due to the recently explosion in the GTAV RP scene, especially on Twitch, where it’s getting big views right now, and all TT/R* can see is people playing the game online, outside of GTAV Online, and not buying their fake bucks, ignoring the fact that the exposure is driving sales of the game for them.

    It’s pretty sad when you consider how much money the game has made.

    • poliovaccine says:

      I’d forgotten about that aspect, but if that is the case, to me at least that’d only make it dumber… I mean, wouldnt better modding tools only further inform and encourage more stuff like that? Stuff which is free publicity and new life for their years-old game? May very well be some angle I’m missing here, but at first pass that’s how it seems to me…

    • TechnicalBen says:

      To get a different coloured chair in Sims 4 costs $3*. For me to “mod” a “texture” takes 30 seconds in Gimp (free except my time to download it) and 2 mins finding and extracting the file, copy/paste in Explorer… So where do you think the priorities will be when “content encryption and DRM” come up on the table at board meetings?

      I likewise don’t buy much/any DLC for games. Even for content I WANT as, for example, EA take down stores and DLC before I get to buy it (Burnout games etc), so I’m never giving them money.

      I’ve started playing Rocket League, and as much as I find it inoffensive (unlike TF2s corruption of the gameplay ;) ) and great artwork, and I want to support the developers, I see they are using “crates” and gambling metrics (using obvious tricks that they know people will fall for, as no one generally accepts they fall for the gambler’s fallacy, and many tend to get addicted to it) that I cannot agree with. So again, I buy the base game, find out it has gambling style DLC and just don’t give them any more of my money/time. :(

      *Made up numbers, but you get the point.

  11. zaldar1978 says:

    Companies have the right to control how their games are used and if they allow modding or not. It may be a stupid business decision but it is one they have a right to make. They own the intellectual property and put the money, time, and effort to make it and keep it popular. You can decide not to buy it sure – but then you do not have the right to play it.

    The amount of money they game has made is irrelevant – it deserves as much as it can make. No amount is to high.

    • Rince says:

      I don’t think so. That’s sick and wrong. I know that we don’t buy games, but a license to use them… but legal thingies out, we buy games and we should do whatever we want with the games… except if it affect other players, eg, cheating online.

    • Kolbex says:

      *sniff, sniff* Hey guys, I found the smelly libertarian.

      • TheAngriestHobo says:

        This kind of attitude is both irresponsible and sad.

        Politics isn’t about mocking and shaming everyone with different beliefs until they slink away and let you impose your values on people. It’s about respectful debate between different ideologies that results in compromise or consensus. If you’re not capable of that, then you’re not being political… you’re being a bigot.

        • Otterley says:

          Full ack and “+1” if there were a button for that :)

        • upupup says:

          Oh please, mockery is now the equivalent of bigotry? I take it parody and satire are deeply reprehensible as well? Aren’t you yourself trying to shame him or is doing so only acceptable when you do it?
          People should get legitimately angry at reprehensible ideologies and those that propagate them, not passively hide beyond platitudes of “well that’s just your opinion”.
          The difference is when you stop thinking and start looking for excuses for violence and hate, which is clearly not what’s happening here.

          You though are being self-righteous without showing any depth in your understanding. Compromise and consensus aren’t magic words of universal truth but require that common ground can and should be reached be reached by willing participants. Your point amounts to a shallow “your tone is mean therefore you’re wrong” to try and win a technical point that doesn’t apply to the context. Baffling.

      • Mario says:

        No fair :) I’m a smelly libertarian and I believe in both fair use and copyright.

    • SaintAn says:

      You’re wrong. Everything you say is an illusion forced on people. They have to rights. Fuck corporations. Go worship them elsewhere.

    • Generico says:

      “and keep it popular”

      No. Typically it’s mods and competitive communities that keep a game popular, not the developer or the publisher. Games without mods or competitive communities usually die after 1 year or less.

      • dashausdiefrau says:

        Could you support that argument with some actual data.

        I would argue that most people buy GTA V for GTA Online which is not moddable.

    • Mario says:

      Yes and no. Fair use, which is constitutional, trumps copyright, which is statutory. If the mod is fair use–and I think there’s a very strong argument that it is–then they actually don’t have the right to stop OpenIV.

      As to why–could be a billable moment for outside counsel.

  12. Generico says:

    I’m sure this will stop the cheaters. There’s no way they could just preserve the tools indefinitely by uploading it to computers around the world.

  13. Ham Solo says:

    OpenIV has literally nothing to do with online cheating.
    If you attempt to change files for online play it will be detected immediately.

  14. milligna says:

    That stinks. With their constant updating, it’ll kill VR mods and that fun police mod among many others.

  15. MajorLag says:

    Guess I get to add another company to the blacklist.

    I want everyone who’s ever bitched about how Valve is the worst thing ever for gaming to remember this moment. This is what being bad for gaming looks like.

  16. Crocobutt says:

    Let it all burn.

  17. SuperTim says:

    I am one of those people who hasn’t bought or played GTA 5 yet (still on the earlier incarnations) but had plans to buy it when I’m ready for it.

    Of course they have all the rights to change the rules, it’s their game and we’re only licensing it. But as a business proposition, this product is now reduced into a 2-year-old game that you cannot mod on, and is not even yours, and there’s now an even greater chance that the value of the game can be decreased at will by the seller in the future.

    I’d say this product should probably be priced at 10€, max. Which is a bit sad, considering that, before they reduced the value of this game, it could have been sold for more. Then again, perhaps their “rights” is more important than the value of the product they’re selling.

    On the other hand, I can now see the possiblility of a “95% off” sale for this game, since it’s definitely not worth 59,99€ now. ^_^

  18. Bergonn says:

    The phrasing is odd:
    “Take-Two’s lawyers have…” you make it sound like the lawyers decided independently of the companies will… No, Take-Two decided to be bastards.
    “allegedly shut down OpenIV” why “allegedly” ? Is it closed or not ? where is the doubt ?
    It’s easy, you can do it: “Take-Two decided to close OpenIV”

  19. racccoon says:

    Its so easy to take games apart its not funny, its hysterical..:)

  20. HCN-Cyanid says:

    Yeah great way to shoot yourself in the foot TT
    link to
    their ratings went to **** on steam, if you want to get their attention and possibly get this undone downvote/write a bad review for this game on steam or any other site you can.A few players being mad at them wont do anything but if news starts going around that GTAV has really bad ratings that will defenitely get their attention; because that could hurt future sails so they wouldn’t be able to just ignore us.

  21. Mario says:

    I sincerely look forward to the day a mod litigates fair use in court. This seems like a good test case, but the modders understandably want out because litigation sucks. Too bad.