[Huz]

Originally Posted by ragnar

HL2 is a server based game, right? That would mean that if the server never ever sends _any_ information that a specific client shouldn't get. It's rather impossible to be able to cheat if you can't get the information. The one owning the server might have an easier time to cheat, but that is another story.

Well, this isn't as easy as it sounds. The server needs to send *some* extraneous information, like the fact a player is lurking just out of view around a corner, to enable the client to cope with lag and packet loss without things getting horribly messy. I believe this is what allows wallhacks and the like to work. Too much checking on the server side also places a heavy load on the server, which drives latency up and doesn't tend to amuse server admins...

Most importantly, client-side cheats (like aimbots) are possible whatever the server does... and a detailed knowledge of the client-side (using the HL2 source code) is just what the developer of such a tool really needs.

remixor, I have saved you!

[ragnar]

Well, I think it is time to drop the topic of cheating security now.

[James]

the topic now should be - delayed till april 2004? eh gods!

[Curt]

Originally Posted by ragnar

I saw a rather comical thing just now. I really don't believe it's true, but anyway:



Source: http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=8634205

Im not a coder but so I don't know for sure... but what if the code that was released was the equivalent of a SDK release?

Quit possible I tell ya.

I wouldn't believe Valve would be capable of this. They know they could push release dates back and people would STILL buy the game and be happy they were getting quality.

Conspiracy theorists everywhere nowadays.

I'll patiently wait and then buy it the minute it's out.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by ragnar

I saw a rather comical thing just now. I really don't believe it's true, but anyway:

Source: http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=8634205

While it is conceivable, I doubt they would actually leak the code in order to get a reason for delay. If they really wanted a good reason to convince people as to a delay they would likely have just claimed it was stolen. Or maybe they just leaked some fake code. Oh, what the hec.

Then again, Curt has a point. Too many conspirary theories out there. Not worth noting, IMHO.


Even then, I doubt anyone is not going to buy it just because it's a couple of months late.

[Garyos]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This was absolutely not supposed to happen with this game!

(Allthough I love conspiracy theories, and the first thing I thought when I read it was "That's the second most justified reason for delaying a game i've ever seen!")

[Ninja Dodo]

Last I heard it's now set for april next year.

[DomStLeger]

If it were a leak it'd be very foolish. They're going to have to do alot of work to convince the companies that supply sections of their engine (such as the havoc physics engine that everyone keeps mentioning) that they can be trusted with it in the future. If I had expensive code and valve wanted to use it in future, I'd want assurances they were running a very secure network now. Also, the security issue will likely have a negative impact on the steam thing of theirs (I mean, would you trust them with your credit card details? I find it hard to believe they are entirely blameless victims). So unless they were utterly desperate I find it unlikely a company would do this to their own reputation to get a few months extra time.

[bigjko]

As much as I love conspiracy theories, here's something that still makes me iffy about the whole April 2004 thing:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11984

[Ninja Dodo]

Representatives of Valve Software have announced that the keenly awaited PC title Half-Life 2 has been delayed until April 2004. The not entirely convincing excuse for the delay is the recent theft of the game’s source code by hackers, now revealed to be only one third of all the total code for the game.

This delay will have a huge effect not only on the prospects for rival games hitting the market before April, but also on other developers that were expecting to use and license the Half-Life 2 technology for their own titles.

...from Gamasutra news, so I would imagine it's pretty reliable.

[remixor]

What I don't understand is why Valve hasn't just issued a press release saying either the game will ship by the holidays or the game will be delayed. Everything is like "This site reports this quote" and so forth. I want to see a statement from Valve, not from someone saying that someone else is saying that Valve is saying something.

[bigjko]

Fun(or not so fun) fact of the day:

"We were already paranoid about security issues because we had our own security breached during the development of Black & White and this has now made us doubly paranoid," said Peter Molyneux, head of Lionhead Studios. "We are currently considering restricting Internet access to certain key individuals."

[remixor]

What is Lionhead currently developing?

[bigjko]

Good question. They've got a whole lot of under-developers doing stuff, like Jeff Minter's Unity, Big Blue Box's Fable, Intrepid's B.C. and then...Black and White studios working on Black & White 2, I guess. Or wait, was B&W Studios working on the console Black & White, and Lionhead personally doing Black & White 2? Yeah, I think that's it. Oh, and The Movies. They're doing that, also.

[twifkak]

Originally Posted by remixor

No, because that suggests that pirates have to do something akin to effort.

That makes it an imperfect analogy, but I don't see how that makes it less apt of an analogy than Spears'.

[twifkak]

Originally Posted by ragnar

Im not a coder

??!!! And you've been arguing about the level of difficulty involved in securing client-server code??? It ain't simple. "Secure" never actually means secure. There have been plenty of infamous open-source buffer under/overruns and the like. Making it open means people find it faster, so yes, it'll be fixed faster, but it'll be exploited even faster than that. Valve has the capability to notice if a cheat exists pretty quickly, so probably gets a better headstart by closing the source.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by twifkak

That makes it an imperfect analogy, but I don't see how that makes it less apt of an analogy than Spears'.

The result is perhaps similar, but as far as the actual act of piracy goes, Kingz'/Spears' analogy is much more accurate.

[twifkak]

I think it depends on whether we're looking at the transgressor's point of view or the victim's point of view. From the former, you're right, while from the latter, I'm right.

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by twifkak

??!!! And you've been arguing about the level of difficulty involved in securing client-server code??? It ain't simple. "Secure" never actually means secure. There have been plenty of infamous open-source buffer under/overruns and the like. Making it open means people find it faster, so yes, it'll be fixed faster, but it'll be exploited even faster than that. Valve has the capability to notice if a cheat exists pretty quickly, so probably gets a better headstart by closing the source.

That part is a part of the quote, but had slipped outside the quote somehow. I just edited the post to reflect this. Sorry about that since quite a few has been quoting it.

[Eye-Z]

i heard it got put back to 2004 q4