Support us on Patreon
PayPalThe saga continues for the GTA III and Vice City code that was reverse engineered and available on GitHub, as it has now been taken down once again from a DMCA request.
For the second time the code repository on GitHub is no more, with it linking to the public DMCA notice that shows Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP acting for Take-Two Interactive Software. It requested a take down of all repositories (including forks) of the code and brings up the recent lawsuit filed against the developers involved in the code.
It's not exactly unexpected of course. They took it down once, counter-claims were filed to bring them back up and now with the lawsuit in progress it was only a matter of time until they vanished once again.
As we've mentioned before the other reason it's no surprise is that there's plenty of credible leaks out there showing that Take-Two are planning to release Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition which would include GTA 3, GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas and so Take-Two are trying to protect the IP here (even though you needed to buy the actual games to work with these reverse engineered source ports).
Take-Two have a history of disliking mods for these and more modern games, issuing multiple take-down requests recently as it seems they want as much control as possible every the whole experience.
We don't expect the code to come back to GitHub given the lawsuit.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Luke_Nukem Oct 4, 2021
GTA DMCA: Take-Two
21 Likes, Who?
I just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.
I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.
So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...
Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.
So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...
Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
15 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.
I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.
So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...
Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
Are you sure that the sole premise of these games are to promote said criminal behaviour? I would claim that the sole premise is to allow a gamer to take part of said illegal activities in a pretend matter.
7 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.*insert not sure if serious emoji*
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: scaineI don't think so, either.
It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property.
I do think they are stupid to go about it in that way, but they are fully in their right to do so and anyone creating a reverse-engineering project like that should really know what they are (potentially) getting into.
The guy who created Daggerfall Unity, for example, actually contacted Bethesda beforehand (or at the beginning anyway) to check if they're fine with what he does.
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 4 October 2021 at 10:53 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.*insert not sure if serious emoji*
Not really serious, no. But I enjoy the irony of it.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.
True, in general. But there's a line (really old games, which probably doesn't apply here since T2 are still selling the games in question) and there's positive engagement with your fanbase, which they've positively ignored.
As I say, time will tell. If they release their Trilogy at a higher price, it's simple greed. If they release it at a lower price, it's a stupid move that costs them: in sales, in legal fees and in reputation with their fanbase (whatever that might be worth).
Quoting: F.UltraQuoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.
I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.
So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...
Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
Are you sure that the sole premise of these games are to promote said criminal behaviour? I would claim that the sole premise is to allow a gamer to take part of said illegal activities in a pretend matter.
I mean... wow. Yeah, I mean in-game. I wasn't implying that GTA fans like to kill cops in real life? I kinda thought that was obvious, but I suppose I didn't state that explicitly.
Last edited by scaine on 4 October 2021 at 11:49 am UTC
5 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineIf they release their Trilogy at a higher price, it's simple greed. If they release it at a lower price, it's a stupid move that costs them: in sales, in legal fees and in reputation with their fanbase (whatever that might be worth).
It's not just "simply greed". To defend your properties do come at a cost. To choose not to defend your property because the bottom line isn't green enough - now that's rather what one should call greed. To drop it because it doesn't lead to short term immediate economical gain.
0 Likes
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.
So, you accept DRM and find it a normal/good way (maybe the only way?) to defend their intellectual property?
You accept a system that restrict your freedom of what you buy only because it protect corporations and give them more power?
You will have to be on the extreme right politically to think so.
0 Likes
See more from me