GTA IV pirates recommend you 'go and buy this one'

by James Ransom-Wiley { Apr 23rd 2008 at 3:00PM }

Gasp! Pirated Grand Theft Auto IV game data has begun popping up on BitTorrent sites today. One alleged rip (6.32 GB) was compiled by a group known as "iCON" and apparently stripped from a PAL-region, Xbox 360 disc. A description of the file warns that the data is not region free and teases, "sorry bushlovers!" (Hey, that's "Mr. President George Dubya Bush lovers" to you, ya stinkin' pi-rats!).

An additional warning recommends would-be players stay off of Xbox Live lest "dirty little spies" catch them and ban their accounts. Ironically, at the end of the file description, the thievery and paranoia gives way to a glowing endorsement: "and guys, seriously, go and buy this one! R* deserves it..." How's that for a back-of-the-box quote!

[Note: We've chosen not to link to any torrent sites hosting the GTA IV tracker -- just take our word for it whydontya!]

Tags: bittorrent, grand-theft-auto-iv, gta-iv, gtaiv, piracy, rockstar, take-two

Related From Joystiq

Analyst estimates seven million day-one sales of Modern Warfare 2
1 day ago
Video: 15 days in GTA IV's Liberty City
7 days ago
Metareview: The Ballad of Gay Tony
15 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Mike @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:03PM

Most releases recommend that you purchase the game. (or have a message saying to purchase it if you enjoy it)

How do I know that? Hmm..

Anonim @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:14PM

So do it! ;) (buy)

----
6.3GB with 5 languages on dics (english,german,french,etc.)

It looks like all that bull***ting on "not enough space on DVD!" was as always simply PS3 fanboys trolling...

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:18PM

anomin,

Thank you for that. I was wondering what chestbeating stupid jackass would incite a console war. So good to know you stepped up. Now die in a fire, please.

browntown @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:31PM

anomin, that houser dude was the one saying that microsoft has a problem since their using a dvd, it just won't be enough later on.
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3167500

MinimumWageNinja @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:33PM

Sir Fidlious, he actually has an interesting point. I thought it capped the limit on a dual layer DVD to what I was reading from Rockstar interviews.

Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:52PM

He could HAVE that point. Except how much data was lost as they converted? Was this a straight ISO rip? Any compression took place? Also, keep in mind, as you're doing final optimization in any game or software project, you find all sorts of redundant data. In my job, I have to sort through hundreds, if not thousands, of database specific files trying to find what we need, what we can toss. During this process, we normally lose about 40% of the space taken up by the project. But I didn't work on GTAIV... I work on flight simulators. So how much my knowledge applies to this project is unknown.

But someone from Rockstar did constantly reiterate difficulty fitting it all on DVD9 all throughout development cycle. So if some people like Curmeo was spewing this, they certainly had sources for the rants.

But besides that...

"It looks like all that bull***ting on "not enough space on DVD!" was as always simply PS3 fanboys trolling..."

Really?!? This is how you solve the problem of trolling. Rant about how they WERE trolling in a thread that had kept the console wars out of this? Point or no, starting shit like this only leads TO the trolls finding this thread and starting the wars.

Tranando @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:20PM

@Anonim 6.8GB is 100% full on an Xbox360 DVD...

There is zero free space on the 360 version, it's as crammed as it can get...

http://xfer.se/8z6ajx

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/deathkiller/1-2.png

Anonim @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:31PM

@Tranando
I see 500MB of free space...

And that counting that torrent ISO HAS security sectors, X360 firmware update files, system files AND first fake session with movie with info "that is X360 disc don't put it in DVD player" blah blah etc.

And those are NOT counted as "usable space" in that 2nd png - that data is counted as that not usable by developers rest of DVD9 disc.

But must be included on ISO or X360 would throw a fit/the game would be easily seen as pirated.

So true size of GTA4 on X360 is less than ISO.

DSK UK @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:34PM

@ Tranando:

no offense intended, but that 2nd image looks like you just whipped that up in powerpoint. Also, i've seen you a lot on PS3fanboy slagging off the 360 at any point you can so I'm sorry....i'm just not buying what you've said

p.s 360 uses DVD9's which have a max size of 8.54GB

what you should say is that R* have to duplicate data on the disc to reduce load speeds...although they do this too on Blu-Ray drives (probably a bit more with the low reading speeds)

Tranando @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:07PM

@DSK UK Actually PS3 Blu-ray is quicker than the 360's DVD drive. Sorry to break it to ya.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=42157

Does it suck to be brainwashed by Microsoft spin and BS?

DSK UK @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:37PM

Tranando:

If you really want say that then fine....you're right - blu ray has a faster constant read speed, but most big files are put on the outside of xbox 360's DVD's which result in faster read speeds than blu-ray

taken from joystiq themselves and a former sony employee:

"Former Sony employee Mark DeLoura :
Admittedly, Blu-Ray looks dicey from several non-capacity angles. Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. Sony announced that PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox 360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times. And that 12x DVD drive should be a whole lot cheaper. (Note that the PS3 drive will do 8x DVD, and even that is faster than 2x BD.)"

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/

as well as oblivion developer saying:

"Drive speed matters more to me [than capacity], and Blu-ray is slower,"

and joystiq mentioning:

"Overall, we know that the Xbox 360 drive reads data faster than PS3's. While the Blu-ray drive might consistently read data at the same speed, the 360 drive is faster at reading data on the outer layers of the DVD disc; and that's were devs tend to put the biggest files."

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/17/ps3s-blu-ray-drive-speed-could-be-reason-for-oblivion-delay/

so there we go....maybe you're subject to Sony marketing BS?

KingOfGods @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:59PM

I tell you what Tranando. I own both a 360 and a PS3 and those load times on a lot of games on the PS3 are horrible. I really think if the Blu-ray drive was faster than a standard DVD drive you wouldn't be required to install GBs of game data from PS3 games.

Tranando @ Apr 23rd 2008 6:03PM

@DSK UK You didnt even bother reading that link, with hard facts, including the one where the 360's DVD drive is only 12x for single layer discs, (of which almost no games are anymore), the rest of the time it's 8x, as as the PS3's DVD reading (not that that's even relevent, as no PS3 games will ever appear on DVD). It's obvious you also need to understand the difference between CLV and CAV, and also peak transfer rate and sustained transfer rate.

The bottom line, 95% of the time, the PS3's 2xBD drive can deliver data faster than the 360's DVD drive.

Also Obvilion had to also duplicate data on the 360 version, to keep up data speeds, the implication that only the PS3 had to do it, was made up by Microsoft FUD doctors, and spewed all over the net, by their army of braindead mouthpieces.

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/ps3/previews/the-elder-scrolls-iv--oblivion-68e797.html

"Bethesda's Pete Hines also commented that recent reports of data duplication on the PS3 Oblivion disc have been exaggerated, and this technique isn't different from the similar strategy that was employed in the creation of the Xbox 360 game last year."

Delgado @ Apr 23rd 2008 7:06PM

I would just like to comment on DSK owning the shit out of that troll Tranando. Much more irritating than Fernando, who at least makes good points from time to time.

Well said DSK.

Muu @ Apr 23rd 2008 8:07PM

Dont want to take sides with trolls or anything, but that 6.8GB statement isn't far off; Wikipedia, and many entries inc. Slashdot entries arguing over some other useless debate mention it's 7GB, which may very well be 6.8GB if they were rounding up. 360s may use DVD-9's, but the argument there is that most likely there's some sort of copy-protect tech or something in the works which eats some space. I wouldnt be surprised one bit either if the inner-most areas of the disc are required to be empty.

Concerning the DVD drive speeds everything points to dvd-16x (or 8x for that matter) being faster than BD-2X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#Storage

Nguyen @ Apr 24th 2008 1:29AM

*looks around, checks if he's late to another fanboy flame war*

Hey Delgado, did your mom drop you on your head and you couldn't read Tranando's post? It had sentences and punctuations! But I guess you can only make sense out of the garbled mess of DSK's posts!

Tranando, the PS3 is slow, no matter what the damn data and statistic tell you, you should probably listen to people who has BOTH consoles, because they're not rabid fanboys if they have BOTH. And when they tell you the PS3 is slow compared to the 360, it probably is! Just be glad you don't have to suck M$'s red ring of dick.

DSK, dude, why were you in PS3fanboy stalking Tranando? You get your rocks off lurking the enemy's base? Where you make comments like "I'm a very destructive person"? And would it kill you to have more than one damn sentence in a paragraph??

Wii ftw, bitches.

superaktieboy @ Apr 24th 2008 12:20PM

Tranando:
its not that the bluray is faster, its that its got too much space
the x360 dvd's have a capacity of about 9GB (i think a bit less) but only 7GB is usable for developers,, while ps3 allows 25GB or 50GB to be used..
now if you take 7GB and read it at a constant speed of 16MB/s, you would do (7000/16=437.5 seconds) 437.5 seconds to finish the data to be read
while on bluray if you read 72Mbits (25000/72=347.22 seconds).. so in theory if its single layer, bluray (2x, ps3) should be faster, but when its dual layer (50GB) it can takes much longer to read all of it!!

(You see, simple maths can get you anywhere :D

browntown @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:04PM

My mom told me not to listen to pirates

Syn @ Apr 23rd 2008 7:21PM

Your mom is a pirate. Shiver me timbers.

peacebyanymeans (AKA: Moorio) @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:05PM

"A description of the file warns that the data is not region free and teases, "sorry bushlovers!"'

I find this offensive.

I fucking hate Bush.

Ninjakamster @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:07PM

I know, they assume all Americans like Bush when his approval rating's like 26%, that percentage is those sitting on their asses watching Fox News all day.

Britton @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:07PM

Cool...so what do you want them to do about it?

Shagittarius @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:11PM

I like bush and hardwood...doesn't matter.

Ringo @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:12PM

Well some of you voted him a 2nd term...

FOXHOUND @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:14PM

I like Bush, he's a talented, Hall of Fame-potential running back for the New Orleans Saints.

And unlike the other guy, Louisiana doesn't mind him being there.

DangerMouse @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:17PM

BOMB THEIR ASS!!!!

WWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ZeroCorpse @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:50PM

I LOVE Bush!

I can't wait until this shaving fad finally ends!

/
/Throw rocks that way ------>

JakubK666 (Ninja Defence Force) @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:02PM

You chose him as your president.Ignorance IS NOT an excuse.

ColossalHat @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:14PM

"You chose him as your president.Ignorance IS NOT an excuse."

Actually, we did not choose him. See, this popular vote thing is a complete sham. It doesn't matter whether you win the popular vote or not. All that matters is the electoral college, which is made up of politicians who are in no way obligated to vote in the same way as the states/communities they represent. So, no, we did not choose him, politicians did.

On the real topic though, I don't like the GTA series because it's extremely repetitive imo. Sandbox games just aren't my bag.

Obvious @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:15PM

@Jakub: I, like many of my sane minded friends, fought both of his terms tooth and nail. Don't lump people like me in with the slack-jawed yokels that still think him a fit leader. Doing so would be equivalent of calling a German person of Jewish faith a nazi circa 1935, simply because that party took power while they lived there.

And, yes, I did just go there. Suck it, "bushlovers".

UltimateQ @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:22PM

Pal releases is what you people get for relying on consoles to bring you video games.

What an over hyped game. I won't lie they do a good job on their games and they are fun. But man the hype is becoming to much to bear.

samfish @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:33PM

I prefer it when Bush is a nice landing strip, myself.

Mission accomplished!

Nick @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:36PM

"You chose him as your president.Ignorance IS NOT an excuse."

Normally I don't respond to posts like this, and I normally ignore trolls and stick to video games (like the awesome looking GTA IV) but...

Fuck you. No Seriously. Fuck You. You're so clueless its insane.

First of all, its debatable that he even won the first time. And the second time, I live in NYC, fucking 4 blocks from the Trade Center site, and in MY city Bush got less than 20% of the vote in 04. We HATE bush. Trust me, I promise you. I hate the president more than you do. He might just be some guy you read about in the paper and go "Man fucking Americans, idiots voting for him" but WE LIVE WITH HIM.

You make condescending stupid higher-than-thou European comments. Where were you in August of 2004? Were you campaigning in Ohio for Kerry? Do you even know how our government is run and how our elections are run?

God, you fucking idiot. Even in 2004, Bush only got 50.4% of the vote.

Fuck you.

Anticrawl @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:37PM

Hrm, I voted for him. But that's because I'd rather have a retard than a coward and a lier. There is never a good choice. It is either backwards retard or crooked coward. Then of course there are the tree hugging hippies and the reform party (lunatics).

Basically we should all buy a gun and overthrow the government, it is protected by the constitution.

Shmil @ Apr 23rd 2008 4:51PM

It wouldn't be a regular Joystiq day unless Samfish came in with a perverted comment.
Thanks Samfish, keep up the good work.

KeenCommander @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:32PM

The electoral college system WORKS. While it may seem silly now, it was intended to make voting but (more importantly) while it could technically happen the electoral college vote has NEVER been contradictory to the popular vote. Not once. In the history of the country. So much for your corrupt politicians theory.

Nick @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:46PM

@KeenCommander:

Wow, how factually wrong could you be.

2000 Election Popular Vote:
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

Btw this is from the FEC... http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Not only did it happen in 2000. It also happened 1876.

Facts: uR doing it wrong.

peacebyanymeans (AKA: Moorio) @ Apr 23rd 2008 5:40PM

@KeenCommander

Explain the 2000 election then.

Phoenix @ Apr 23rd 2008 6:39PM

Mistah keencommander,

The electoral college is obsolete, these days. From what I learned, it seems it was made for the early states, because people were so spread out, so it was hard for people to make educated decisions on the people they voted for. So they just elected people to elect the leaders.
Though then again, it's not often we make educated decisions now either.

And @ everything else.

I sure didn't elect him. I only turned 18 last year.

rv @ Apr 23rd 2008 7:53PM

anticrawl: expect to be deported to guantanamo immediately after the fbi reads your comment.

Anticrawl @ Apr 23rd 2008 8:25PM

Also real quick, since apparently not one of you understand how the Electoral College works. People vote in a state. Whichever candidate got the popular vote in said state is voted for by the elector and those total votes are tallied to decide who won. So if one state worth 1 electoral vote went Bush: 20,000 and Gore:200,000 then that would be one vote for Gore and if another state went Bush 170,000 and Gore: 160,000 then Bush would get the 1 point. So it would be tied 1:1 but the total popular vote of the two states would be Bush:190,000 and Gore:360,000 but they would still be tied in electoral votes. You guys are moronic, what Keen said is true. In fact the majority of states have laws requiring that the elector vote based on the popular vote of said state.

Now the system being good or not is another question, but don't talk about things you don't understand. I personally think voting in our country needs a major retooling.

Casey R Williams @ Apr 26th 2008 1:53PM

Maybe it's because despite his stealing the election and getting us into an endless war against people who hadn't attacked us, totally failing to find those who actually did, and all the while taking away basic American rights and freedoms while giving positions (and later pardons) to his crooked neo-con cronies, we still elected him to a second term.

fatherb @ Apr 26th 2008 9:37PM

How is spying on terrorist and traitors taking away our personal freedoms again? I do not fit those qualifications so my personal freedoms are still protected. This is unlike my personal freedoms and yours being effected by programs enacted by clinton such as carnivore and echelon which spy on every citizen of the world who use any electronic devices ie computer and phones.

Neebs @ Apr 23rd 2008 3:05PM

I'm looking on the iCON release and I don't see it.

Richie @ Apr 23rd 2008 6:12PM

@Anticrawl

Those comments about Kerry were untrue!! He just waited to long to respond because he didn't think it would go anywhere,but it damaged his campaign. All of those vets in those ads were LYING!! It was all cleared up to late that's maybe why ppl like you are still didn't know about that.

Anticrawl @ Apr 23rd 2008 9:30PM

No I followed it quite closely. He was a two-faced lier and a coward, after the investigation into those "rumors" they uncovered worse things about his "military background". Atleast Bush had no quams or lies about how pathetic his background was. I'd rather have a retard than a coward leading our coutries army.

People will fear a retard with a gun but not a coward with a gun.

Nick @ Apr 24th 2008 12:54AM

@anticrawl:

Regarding Kerry's military career, you're just wrong. He has a VERY distinguished and pretty amazing military background. Fact is that Kerry risked his life to save his boat and crew. Fact is he got MULTIPLE purple hearts and a bronze heart.

No offense, this man faced a guy with a B-40 rocket pointed at his face and didn't back down. He was DEFINITELY not a coward, and you're either stupidly misinformed or a fucking asshole lier calling a true military hero a coward.

Do me a (and everyone else here) favor and do some real research (instead of claiming to have done research.) Here, I'll give you two places to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry's_military_service
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Facts: Ur also doing it StUPIDLY wrong.