| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (42)

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:19AM Triskelion said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Did Scott talk about the gaping hole in their security that allowed hackers access to player accounts and had to discovered and fixed by the player base, and not by Trion? THAT was the story.

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Triskelion Or the fact that they were upfront and honest about the bug and the fact that it affected around 1% of the playerbase (which they said was still too many) or that each one of those players were given free game time.

Oh, and the fact that from the moment of discovery to fix took about 2-3 hours.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 12:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Triskelion

It probably wasn't covered since a:) it affected less than 1% of the players, and b:) security compromises are not unique to Rift. Nice try though.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 12:20PM The Minn said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) I am part of that 1% who was "hacked" and I will tell you this: I was compensated by Trion in a very good way. My account is also back to normal. It did not take long but Trion did a great job. Not their fault it happened. I mean....there are loopholes in everyday life. But from the experience of it all I am still a happy camper.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 12:43PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@The Minn

If it isn't trions fault their system had a security hole, then whose fault is it? They might not have any guilt, but it certainly is their fault.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 12:48PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Triollelion

Derail threads much?
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 4:06PM jslim419 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata

he posted about rift, and the pitfalls of it's "tech"... i'd say he's right on topic. but i'm sorry i forgot that anything but "OMG! RIFT IS SO KEWL!" is off topic to rift fanboys.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 5:26PM Wiebelhausgmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Triskelion Stop bitching like a small child about something you obviously have no understanding of , your so called "gaping hole" affected no more than 1% of the total accounts.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 5:44PM exe973 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@jslim419
No, it's that almost every post about RIFT has him bitching about it. We get it, he hates the game. But I don't understand why he has such a vendetta that he can't just move on. It's not like he's forced to play or read about it.

One or two complaints is one thing, but after a while, he just got obnoxious. At this point he's nothing but a troll.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 5:55PM Apakal said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Wiebelhausgmailcom

The minute I start believing corporate statistics will be the same day I start voting Republican.

Baaaaaa...
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:20AM aurickle said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I remember in one of the earliest articles I read about Rift they talked about how a significant part of the game (such as all NPC's) resides on the server rather than the client. They were talking about how this would allow them to modify the world on the fly -- such as introducing new NPC's or telling them to do new things -- without client patches.

We've already seen some of that in action, such as how many NPC's walk around and do things. I'm really looking forward to seeing how far they can push the technology.

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:39AM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No game should need a client patch to tell npc's to do new things because that info should be stored server anyways. This is why blizzard, for example, can modify boss abilities and plenty of things with just a hot fix. Hot fix is a code word for "changed/added-to the server code".

Certain things should always be stored server side when it comes to an MMO. It could theoretically be possible for blizzard to release new models, art, and client changes without the need for a "true" patch since they now have the streaming client.

It sounds like RIFT is using something similar in that they don't need to release a classic patch to add new stuff but just streaming it to the client. But whenever you change the client you are patching it for all intents and purposes. What is considered a patch has to evolve right along with the technology used to change the gaming client.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 12:59PM Skyydragonn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle FYI Blizzards "Hot fixes' still require clients to download the updated data. but instead of a patch including multiple changes they fix that singular issue. Being that its a single change it doesn't need a "patch" including patch notes etc.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 1:09PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Skyydragonn

You are wrong. Hot fixes change things only on the server side and do not alter the client. It is why tool tips won't update after a hot fix until they release a client patch.

A hot fix changes only the server code. Blizzard still uses formal patches to change anything with the game client. It is unclear weather or not they could stream client changes without a patch.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 7:53PM aurickle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle
Here was the article that I first read about Rift. It explains how what Rift is capable of doing is different from WoW or other MMO's.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/06/08/e3-2009-impressions-of-heroes-of-telara/

My memory was a little off. All the assets still reside client-side. But the server has total control over those assets.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:23AM Ratham said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Something has always confused me about older MMO's vs new ones. Hasnt the server technology improved greatly that a newer game would hold more people?

Example:
Game 1 is from 2002 and servers can hold up to 2000 players and show "high" population at 1600 players.

Game 2 is from 2010 and servers can hold up to 8000 players and show "high" population at 7500 players. But a "low" population server might have more people than a "high" server in game 1....

Couldn't a company use this as an exploit of some sorts? Have a bunch of low capacity servers to make it look like your game is doing amazing by having so many high population servers?

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 2:33PM WitchDrAsh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ratham This does happen, individual zones have crashed in games because they've had too many people in one spot, normally people are spread out and they zones can be cut up pretty cleverly to allow people to allow the world to support huge numbers of players, when they couldn't even touch 1/10 of that number in a single place.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 4:27PM jslim419 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Ratham

game 1 has 11 million active paying subscribers

game 2 has anywhere between 400k to 600k active paying subscribers

that is all the numbers you need to worry yourself with.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 5:19PM axler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jslim419

well not really, especially when speaking about servers and sharded games.
game number 1 might have 11 million subscribers but they are spread through many servers
game number 2 might be running a single shard universe and while only having 400k subscribers they are all on one server. So that one server has far more players on it then any server in game number 1

take eve for example. A normal sharded mmo server is as big as what, a decent alliance in eve?
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2011 11:46AM Keen and Graev said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In that entire article not one word was mentioned regarding what technology Trion built, created, etc. 99% hyperbole, 1% wishful thinking. The only tech talk there was the standard server functions being placed on individual servers.

"Modifying the world on the fly" is called hotfixing. It's been done.

Someone enlighten me about what this technology is, please.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW