Is there going to be enough beta console players to test cyrodil?

Rioht

As a huge fan of ESO, and a VERY patient player waiting for the console release, I am concerned that the console beta is not going to be enough.

It seems that there have been very limited numbers of beta keys distributed, and certain aspects of the game (I.e. cyrodil are basically untouched). Having watched deltias stream, and a few other (lesser well known) streamers, there was at most 4-5 people in cyro.

I know its only Friday, but this is not looking good to test out the servers. Lag is a massive issue on PC, and there.no way of telling if the console versions will hold up in the situations, or if they will crash.

Please don't launch the console version without PROPERLY testing cyrodil ZoS, or for your sake I really hope you have resolved the lag issues in cyro.

Sylvyr

Even if there were serious problems, do you think they would postpone release?

Rioht

Sylvyr wrote: »

Even if there were serious problems, do you think they would postpone release?

No but they could start working on resolutions now, rather than having a broken content piece for a longer period of time at release. Cause that would do wonders for reviews.

H3Li0S

Limited beta like that is only a way to bring more hype and advertise the game. They don't care bout their server stability.

RedTalon

The truth is they need to send enopugh beta keys to people that would devote enough time to that area, and cap for each alliance to get a true test...so 250+ for each side or at-least one side and a 100 on the rest.

Think its largely safe to assume with what we have been hearing about console, the pvp isn't the main focus of testing yet for that system

Sphinx2318

Answer: NO

Rioht

H3Li0S wrote: »

Limited beta like that is only a way to bring more hype and advertise the game. They don't care bout their server stability.

I could see that for an unreleased game, where they want to keep some.mystery to the game. But his is more or.less PC ESO on a new platform, with very different hardware.

Cogo

Didnt some people want smaller scale PvP? *Giggle*

Thymos

Even if there were enough players, not all of them are all that interested in pvp.

Pallmor

If they were truly confident in the stability of the release, they would have had more than a small 4 day closed beta. And with only six weeks to go, there is no way they could fix much anyway.

wrlifeboil

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

wrlifeboil

Pallmor wrote: »

If they were truly confident in the stability of the release, they would have had more than a small 4 day closed beta. And with only six weeks to go, there is no way they could fix much anyway.

Sure they could. It's called a launch day patch or update whatever they call it. I think it's going to be huge.

Ojustaboo

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

There never used to be the PvP lag there is now and it's possible it was caused by one of the patches moving things that were being done on the client (but being abused by botters) , over to the server.

It is possible with the consoles being more secure (bots wise anyway) that more could be done on the console rather than the server.

Not saying that is the case, just thinking out loud.

A5ko

Once we learnt it was such a small test, it should of been obvious that this is a promotional demo and not a beta.

With no more tests on the horizon, im giving this game a pass.

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

It is very different. The locked-down nature of consoles (requiring all code to be signed to run it) and the trusted connection through the console maker's "official" network makes it a non-issue to safeguard against hacked clients. This makes it possible for them to use the approach they had at launch, where the client was trusted with doing a lot of the computations that have since been pushed to the server side.

It's perfectly possible that this difference alone is enough to make Cyrodiil an enjoyable experience on consoles, much like it was on the PC/Mac platform just after launch.

Faugaun

Ojustaboo wrote: »

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

There never used to be the PvP lag there is now and it's possible it was caused by one of the patches moving things that were being done on the client (but being abused by botters) , over to the server.

It is possible with the consoles being more secure (bots wise anyway) that more could be done on the console rather than the server.

Not saying that is the case, just thinking out loud.

I'm interested in the differences in security on Xbox vs PC platforms....my understanding (from another thread that complained about the size of the game) is that Xbox has 3 USB ports that external harddrives can be connected. PS has a hard drive that can be easily removed and replaced. This leads me to believe that since the hard drives are easily accessible it would be just as easy to install the Xbox game to an external along with a bot and write a script to allow access from a modified PC bot?

Now i dunno much about this stuff but I don't see where they can lessen the security on Xbox compared to PC. If someone can clarify that would be awesome.

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

It is very different. The locked-down nature of consoles (requiring all code to be signed to run it) and the trusted connection through the console maker's "official" network makes it a non-issue to safeguard against hacked clients. This makes it possible for them to use the approach they had at launch, where the client was trusted with doing a lot of the computations that have since been pushed to the server side.

It's perfectly possible that this difference alone is enough to make Cyrodiil an enjoyable experience on consoles, much like it was on the PC/Mac platform just after launch.

I mean can't signatures be forged? I mean that's just copy and paste once you know what to copy and paste? What else is locked down? Are the lockdowns device side?

I know I played dungeon defenders and there are hacks a plenty in that game, huge weapons with crazy stats etc...(now that was on 360 not xb1). I really don't see a difference between console and PC security wise though.

NewBlacksmurf

Faugaun wrote: »

Ojustaboo wrote: »

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Why would Cyrodiil for console players be any different than Cyrodiil for PC players? I doubt that it's any different server side.

There never used to be the PvP lag there is now and it's possible it was caused by one of the patches moving things that were being done on the client (but being abused by botters) , over to the server.

It is possible with the consoles being more secure (bots wise anyway) that more could be done on the console rather than the server.

Not saying that is the case, just thinking out loud.

I'm interested in the differences in security on Xbox vs PC platforms....my understanding (from another thread that complained about the size of the game) is that Xbox has 3 USB ports that external harddrives can be connected. PS has a hard drive that can be easily removed and replaced. This leads me to believe that since the hard drives are easily accessible it would be just as easy to install the Xbox game to an external along with a bot and write a script to allow access from a modified PC bot?

Now i dunno much about this stuff but I don't see where they can lessen the security on Xbox compared to PC. If someone can clarify that would be awesome.

Completely NO

NewBlacksmurf

I do hope that they allow us to use the templates in character creation to have VR14 on Saturday or Sunday to test out Cyrodil with everyone.

But at lvl 10 we can go too so I doubt it'll be a real test unless they open up the closed beta to fully open to everyone at 10am

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO

Faugaun wrote: »

I mean can't signatures be forged? I mean that's just copy and paste once you know what to copy and paste? What else is locked down? Are the lockdowns device side?

I know I played dungeon defenders and there are hacks a plenty in that game, huge weapons with crazy stats etc...(now that was on 360 not xb1). I really don't see a difference between console and PC security wise though.

PCs and consoles are a world apart in terms of security and openness.

While some games may be designed in a way that allows you to alter game data by accessing the files through other means, it is a rather simple matter to have the server sign the data files in a secure manner based on a checksum, which would make them invalid if you changed their content in any way.

The executable files are cryptographically protected in a way that is intended to make them impossible to change unless you have access to a signing process, and for that you need to be a trusted game publisher. Sure, there have been security breaches of such systems, but they require a lot more work than just "copy and paste", and with the constant online nature of today's consoles, keys that are compromised can be invalidated.

A digital signature is considerably more complex than just a chunk of data that can be copied. If you want to read more on the subject of modern digital signatures, the general term is "asymmetric cryptography" or "public key cryptography".

RazzPitazz

Add to that the fact that there is no modding community for consoles, which means no open source coding, consoles will be MUCH more secure.

Ojustaboo

I'm a little surprised at the lack of console pics etc from the beta players so far this weekend.

I thought there would have been tons of pics, streams etc, seems to only be a handful of streams (unless I'm not looking in the right place)

c.p.garrett1993_ESO

Definitely not. I watched a live beta stream and PvP was practically deserted.
This was for the PS4 NA beta during the afternoon/ evening where most people will be home.

Faugaun

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

I mean can't signatures be forged? I mean that's just copy and paste once you know what to copy and paste? What else is locked down? Are the lockdowns device side?

I know I played dungeon defenders and there are hacks a plenty in that game, huge weapons with crazy stats etc...(now that was on 360 not xb1). I really don't see a difference between console and PC security wise though.

PCs and consoles are a world apart in terms of security and openness.

While some games may be designed in a way that allows you to alter game data by accessing the files through other means, it is a rather simple matter to have the server sign the data files in a secure manner based on a checksum, which would make them invalid if you changed their content in any way.

The executable files are cryptographically protected in a way that is intended to make them impossible to change unless you have access to a signing process, and for that you need to be a trusted game publisher. Sure, there have been security breaches of such systems, but they require a lot more work than just "copy and paste", and with the constant online nature of today's consoles, keys that are compromised can be invalidated.

A digital signature is considerably more complex than just a chunk of data that can be copied. If you want to read more on the subject of modern digital signatures, the general term is "asymmetric cryptography" or "public key cryptography".

But how is this different then implementing the same systems on a PC? I mean ya anyone can open a txt file and write code...but game companies could just as easily implement their own signature system (copy and paste from an existing one, or bu y a license to Microsoft's one...) Then implement it on their game ...

/throws hands up in the air


Welp anyways if this is correct that consoles are more secure then it would be awesome to see some junk code removed


Edit: I mean I understand pgp keys etc...as far as data security, I still don't see the difference in console vs pc

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO

Faugaun wrote: »

But how is this different then implementing the same systems on a PC? I mean ya anyone can open a txt file and write code...but game companies could just as easily implement their own signature system (copy and paste from an existing one, or bu y a license to Microsoft's one...) Then implement it on their game ...

/throws hands up in the air

Welp anyways if this is correct that consoles are more secure then it would be awesome to see some junk code removed

Computer security is a complex subject, but it's not all that hard to explain the fundamentals, and I'm a teacher by profession (although not in computer security per se), so I'll give it another shot:

On consoles, there is a hard requirement to have all executables signed. It is built into the OS and the hardware, in a manner that is (supposedly) safe-guarded against tampering. This prevents you or anyone else from hacking the binary code to make the game client behave in any manner the developers did not intend. This is the fundamental and important difference in terms of security between PC and consoles, and it makes a huge difference in what kind of trust the server can place in the clients. The server knows exactly what software runs at the client, because it is locked down.

On PC and Mac, any software is by design infinitely hackable, and there is nothing to stop you from modifying a game client to do naughty stuff if the server doesn't check for it. Any attempts at retrofitting PC software with the kind of signing that consoles have is not going to be secure, because the operating system and the hardware are open. That openness is very desirable in many circumstances, but it's a nightmare for security.

Making the server robust enough against hacked clients requires extra work, and that is at least part of the reason why the lag in Cyrodiil has become worse with every patch. So, yes, there will most definitely be some server code that has been added to the PC servers that will simply not be needed in the console servers. Hopefully, it will make a difference for performance.

Hadria

Of course they're not going to get enough people to properly test it.

Faugaun

@stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO so basically what you are saying is that:

Since is is embedded in the hardware and the company (and companies contractors) control the hardware portion then a potential hacker would be required to bypass both the OS and hardware deterrents in order to successfully breach security in a console. This dedicated hardware security is lacking in consumer level PC systems for flexibility purposes which indirectly diminishes the security system.

Now my understanding is that the software based solutions on the console could just as easily be implemented into the game code (maybe this is where the lag is occurring that you point out?). I guess I can kinda see this but then if the consoles are checking this on the software client it still isn't very secure (you could easily use a verified client and then once the game is open do a more advanced form of hex editing to live edit the code on the fly). It doesn't seem like the console version would be very apt at stopping this (but then again they have also been dealing with this type of cheating for a long time).

Just trying to logically visualize the system it seems that the only effective way would be to have constant on going client validation (like while you're playing) and it would have to be done server side (other wise it could be scripted around to fool the system). This would be very resource intensive and (especially when checking for false positives and false negatives resulting from dropped data during transmission (which is amazingly reliable in my mind, I dunno how it's as correct as it is...but hey I guess it's on or off...) ....

It still seems that someone live editing (with a script) from say an external hard drive, could edit it live (think at it from a cloud computing perspective, where you're running the modifications from an external system thus bypassing your code needing to be validated (the same way the game code needed to be validated) in order to operate....OK that sounds a little more pita than breaking into a PC system from a fundamental level...or at least more effort required..which is all any security is...making it hard enough that brute force won't work with current tech.




I hope my rant is making some sense, I'm sure some details are off but I think I got the general concept now.