Let's hope we won't see too much of that in PSO2

[Ark22]

Hoping a game won't get hacked in like saying a new store won't get robbed. It will happen eventually, just will try my hardest to avoid.

[BWS-1]

However, PSO is a rather different matter. While you could play offline, PSO was always meant to be, and sold as, a cooperative online game. While I still don't agree with not providing support for (again, completely separate) offline play, I can't blame SEGA to the same degree as Blizzard with Diablo III. Further, with the F2P model, it's a little more difficult, although they could simply sell the offline mode for, say, $20, and I'm sure more than a few would shell out for that.

Plus, offline mode doesn't do anything for the security of those who want to go online.

You're right in both cases. Incidentally, as I could stick to offline for PSO, I wouldn't be protected if I'd want to ''go/stick to'' online. But the thing is, should I had been had online, I could decide then to stick to offline. A freedom that no longer is.

I'm still ''adapting'' to SEGA's move with PSO2. I would be fine playing PSO2 as an online-only game if I had the confidence that, say, I could have a support from SEGA similar to to the one I get from Blizzard with WoW. But should I expect much? WoW is a P2P game, then again, now F2P as well (up to level 20). As far as we know, the ''F2P'' model SEGA has is comparable to the P2P model of WoW; sure, what you pay for is different, but for the price you pay per month for WoW, it includes features which, in PSO2, you have to pay per month to maintain unlocked.

Next thing I wouldn't be surprised is if SEGA announces that from level 20 to X, Hunters are considered ''Guardians'', but hey for that, you'll need a ''licence'' to ''gain levels as Guardians''. And how you keep that? By paying a little bit more. Per month. Making it even more like WoW by being F2P... up to level 20! But now that's just me being a cynic, forgive me

On a brighter note, I would definitely pay 20$ to get me some offline mode to PSO2.

[moorebounce]

If game companies were smart they would hire these hacker/tinkerers to help improve their game's security. "It takes a thief to catch a thief" Don't get mad at them hire them. Then when you don't need them anymore make the split amicable that way you don't have some angry ex-employee coming back on you.

[Rhypht]

There was already talk of people hacking in the CB test, which is really ridiculous and quite shameful.
I think that it is bound to happen, but as long as Sega has an efficient way of dealing with it, the game won't be known as "that game that's really easy to hack because Sega doesn't do anything about it." Blizzard's system of dealing with stuff like this, the "ticket" system, is really a joke. I still have tickets about pretty severe bugs on my account from over a year ago that they just never even answered.
I think that as long as Sega stays away from stuff like that, then PSO2 won't build the reputation of an easy to hack game.

[RocSage]

You're right in both cases. Incidentally, as I could stick to offline for PSO, I wouldn't be protected if I'd want to ''go/stick to'' online. But the thing is, should I had been had online, I could decide then to stick to offline. A freedom that no longer is.

I'm still ''adapting'' to SEGA's move with PSO2. I would be fine playing PSO2 as an online-only game if I had the confidence that, say, I could have a support from SEGA similar to to the one I get from Blizzard with WoW. But should I expect much? WoW is a P2P game, then again, now F2P as well (up to level 20). As far as we know, the ''F2P'' model SEGA has is comparable to the P2P model of WoW; sure, what you pay for is different, but for the price you pay per month for WoW, it includes features which, in PSO2, you have to pay per month to maintain unlocked.

Next thing I wouldn't be surprised is if SEGA announces that from level 20 to X, Hunters are considered ''Guardians'', but hey for that, you'll need a ''licence'' to ''gain levels as Guardians''. And how you keep that? By paying a little bit more. Per month. Making it even more like WoW by being F2P... up to level 20! But now that's just me being a cynic, forgive me

On a brighter note, I would definitely pay 20$ to get me some offline mode to PSO2.

WoW is not F2P and uses a different model. They claim 1-20 is "free to play" but they are behind the times on the language. WoW has a free trial where you can play up to 20. CoH had a free trial version as well up to lvl 14. Free to play means that all "base" level content (which leveling to max is) is free. They may however add a "planet" or a new "class" that may require you to purchase it in a one time fee.

Oh yeah... You should stop comparing anything to WoW. WoW is outside the norm by a huge factor. Nexon, Aeria, and NCsoft games are closer to what one would consider an industry norm of operation considering those 3 companies run most of the western MMORPGs.

[BWS-1]

My bad, I didn't mean indepth comparison with WoW itlself, it was mostly about the costumer service aspect and P2P model.

Yes it's a P2P and PSO2 is F2P, but like I said up there too, with WoW (and other P2P games I reckon) you don't have to PAY to be able to trade: that comes default with the game. So this is what I meant when I said they resemble each other despite PSO2 being a F2P model: to get the same amount of features - not content yet, just options to go about the content - you get them included in a subscription fee in one, or not included in the other... unless you DO want to add a subscription fee to unlock said features.

TL;DR: All I hope is that if I'm to dish out more than I am for WoW per month (or any other P2P mmo), I'm to get my money's worth with PSO2.
May it be content, feature or customer support-wise.

[kyuuketsuki]

That isn't really the case though, there are people that state they use strong passwords getting hacked, and even if some weren't telling the truth, a few people reported that they their account got compromised even though they used those fancy mobile authenticators you can buy.

Yeah, people say all kinds of things. The problem is, there's no evidence of any of it. It's just hearsay from people on the internet. Blizzard has stated they have not had a single case reported to them that involved an account with an authenticator attached prior to the account breach (though plenty of people attached one after the fact). Sure, Blizzard could be lying, but I find that much less likely than people getting keylogged/phished and blaming Blizzard for stuff that's really their own fault. Then shit gets spread by trolls/fear-mongerers/ignorant people and suddenly it's a big thing when really it's not.

From some sources it seemed like a possibility was that hackers were somehow able to obtain access to using the account by accessing information/server permission using older play session info. How someone would access that I'm not sure of, it could be through simple player info that's already available to any player or it could be through an error/hole in the game's security.

Yeah, "from some sources" is not a source I'm willing to take seriously. Do these "sources" have any evidence to back this up or, as I'm willing to bet, are they just speculating and pointing fingers? None of the launch issues had anything to do with the authentication system, which isn't even specific to Diablo III. It's just using Bnet 2.0, which has been out for a while and I don't recall any reports of its authentication system being compromised in any way.

[Randomness]

Apparently whats happening in Diablo 3 is people hijacking Session IDs, which would have Blizzard at fault.



Wat.

That's just a rumor - considering Blizzard has said they've found no evidence of it and nobody has offered any shred of proof that it's the case.

If game companies were smart they would hire these hacker/tinkerers to help improve their game's security. "It takes a thief to catch a thief" Don't get mad at them hire them. Then when you don't need them anymore make the split amicable that way you don't have some angry ex-employee coming back on you.

The people they hire for this almost certainly have the skillset to be hackers themselves - you can't learn how to stop hackers without learning how to hack. At least, I don't think you can. Not while understanding why you're doing what you're doing.

However, no amount of experts are ever going to stop social engineering attacks. Humans are the weak link in security, not the programs. Usually.

[Reia]

It's not about the F2P or P2P, Diablo 3 is B2P. I don't see a subscription model unless you bought the half cost, rent account model. In the Case of F2P, They don't resort with this "So-called hacking methods" as they see players as potential costumers, even the premiun ones. The only reason they are massively stealing account is to spam their RMT sites considering you have to buy the game per account, so it's easier for them if they just steal it from an existing users. Considering the difficulty that is for them to obtain accounts they mostly fish players that "subscribed to their 3rd party service" and decided to stop using it for a few months as they no longer see them as a potentional costumer and more of a useful account to steal for both using it for botting and nabbing all the gold inside of it. Kinda like a Mafia mob, you hire them once, you have to keep hiring them or else they break your back. At same time they recreate the official sites to fish some unlucky player that don't have the legit way of getting in and can fool them by making him think he's been busted, or that they have a management problem and contact them, having the log-in of the support site totally rigged to send away the info and a bot immediately change the password of the account registered.

But once again, this won't happen since the account making is free. Althought that also means we will have our blocks and lobbies full of gold spammers.

[skuld01]

Have a global look such nonsense only happen in China and United State.
There maybe the same problem elsewhere but it never get big.

I bet if PSO2 stay in JP it won't have a really big problem.