CoroCoro August issue reveals 'Genesect': No. 649 has finally arrived

[SnorlaxMonster]

There's no obvious danger, as in, things works as you decide you want them to work.

This works both ways. You can decide "I will make a system that has no security holes." or you can decide "I can hack every security system." There is no spear that can pierce every shield and no shield that resist every spear.

You're saying that there are issues in the said system of DLC Pokémon. I say that there aren't, because the said system has not yet been made -- and when it is made, it will be made so that it counters potential problems, like hacking.

You can't make a game where people have access to the code themselves unhackable. Online games where the code is stored on an external server aren't unhackable, but are substantially more difficult to hack (in most cases). People will be able to hack any new Pokemon game that comes out. That is going to happen, but it generally only affects their experience so is usually not an issue.

Any system in which a program is patched automatically without user consent from something that could have been modified by a third party is flawed.

You seem to be thinking that they should have utilized the security needed for a DLC system on a game that doesn't have it. Yes, hacking is not bound to be countered in Generation III or IV, since there is no native infrastructure for adding new Pokémon or moves. Why do you assume they will overlook all those obvious threats to their system on a game that does have such an infrastructure?

That's not what I said at all. I said that they won't put the system in place because they will see these threats. And it isn't prevented in Generation III or IV because the security hole doesn't exist; it doesn't even make any sense to even consider such security being put in place.

In fact, you were the one who said that Game Freak may not notice the security issue, not me. I suggested the opposite.

There aren't things that can't be done; if they decide to utilize the concept of adding new Pokémon mid-Gen, it's their job to make the system work, and they will.

What you can't do is make something perfect. That is impossible. And the issue is that an imperfection could jeopardize other people's experience without them doing anything wrong - a game-breaking bug.

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

You can't make a game where people have access to the code themselves unhackable. Online games where the code is stored on an external server aren't unhackable, but are substantially more difficult to hack (in most cases). People will be able to hack any new Pokemon game that comes out. That is going to happen, but it generally only affects their experience so is usually not an issue.

Any system in which a program is patched automatically without user consent from something that could have been modified by a third party is flawed.

People don't have access to the games' source code; but nonetheless, of course -- as long as bugs exist, it's not impossible to take advantage of them, and it has indeed been possible to extract and insert data in previous games. I'm not going ahead and say that I don't think hacking will be as possible in the next generation as it is now, because I find estimations a weak kind of arguement. For reference however, 3DS's security hasn't yet been broken really. And while that's not to say it will never be (because it will), I'm gonna ask; how does this change anything? Why can't they work on a solution that fixes problems even if they haven't been prevented.

I don't find it necessary to go into specific solutions of those "issues", but let's do it for once. So, let's assume someone indeed inserts Agumon on a Pokémon game for fun, and because he can. He then plays with his friend, and Agumon's data are inserted into his friend's game -- the friend may or may not know, it doesn't matter. As the friend walks back to his home, he transfers Agumon's data to ten other people because of StreetPass; 5 of them are in common with using Wi-Fi on their 3DS and do, 5 of them are kids, don't have a wireless internet connection, or simply don't bother with Wi-Fi.

The original Agumon inserter, the friend and the 10 other people arrive to their home and leave their 3DS on the table. For the Agumon-inserter, the friend and the 5 other people, SpotPass starts working and does a routine update check. Since Agumon's data is not in line with the official updates of the game, the data is erased on those 7 people's games that use Wi-Fi. Furthermore, since the original Agumon inserter had an Agumon on, say, Box 9, that Agumon is also removed, and he/she receives a note that non-official data were found in the game. Problem solved. The five other people who don't use Wi-Fi, still have Agumon on their game but it does not affect their gameplay in any way conceivable, as it's not able to be obtained, seen or interacted with. They will eventually StreetPass with someone with more recent data, or find themselves online, or play with a friend of theirs that has a more recent update through local wireless and the data is eventually replaced.

And no one says the updates have to be without user consent. 3DS games that utilize StreetPass and SpotPass have options to enable or disable those features. You can imagine how this can be applied in other sectors as well.

This works both ways. You can decide "I will make a system that has no security holes." or you can decide "I can hack every security system." There is no spear that can pierce every shield and no shield that resist every spear.

That's not what I said at all. I said that they won't put the system in place because they will see these threats. And it isn't prevented in Generation III or IV because the security hole doesn't exist; it doesn't even make any sense to even consider such security being put in place.

In fact, you were the one who said that Game Freak may not notice the security issue, not me. I suggested the opposite.

What you can't do is make something perfect. That is impossible. And the issue is that an imperfection could jeopardize other people's experience without them doing anything wrong - a game-breaking bug.

I apologise for keeping on replying, since we're more or less repeating ourselves, but let me say that I find this kind of thinking frustratingly unambitious and unprogressive. You can't make a perfect shield, but you don't have to make one either. You have to make one strong enough to withstand the spears you expect to encounter. This is a Pokémon game, not NASA's first manned mission on Mars. There won't be hackathons on creating exploits that destroy other players' gameplay experiences. Perhaps some people will try to find ways to play arround with the games' data, and maybe some will even achieve that, but I can assure you that any problem that will occur will be the exception, not the rule.

It's not only unconceivably likely to cope with threats that may occur from unexpected exploits (like the one I mentioned earlier, and of course patches that fix potential game-breaking bugs and eliminate exploits), but also a way too minor possibility. For the record, I never implied "they might not see a potential issue". And you didn't imply it either; you stated it quite clearly, since you're willing to assume that exploits will happen and Game Freak knows that, which is why they will decide against the feature. I'm willing to bet that they are professionals, and if they decide the implement the said feature, the players' experiences will hardly vary. And even if exploits occur, there will be ways to cope with them eventually.

There won't be more games broken from bugs than there in any other game. I shudder even on the thought that we have to debate on whether all of this is possible. For crying out loud, these ideas are common practice of modern online systems' features, we live in 2012.

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

They will eventually StreetPass with someone with more recent data, or find themselves online, or play with a friend of theirs that has a more recent update through local wireless and the data is eventually replaced.

Here's the issue: how do the games know the difference between an official and unofficial patch? Sure, one can say "I'm v1.0.2" while another says "I'm v1.0.3", but a hacker could just as easily tell the game that the patch is the most recent.

And no one says the updates have to be without user consent. 3DS games that utilize StreetPass and SpotPass have options to enable or disable those features. You can imagine how this can be applied in other sectors as well.

Yeah, you can turn them on/off, but the idea is that this patch allows the older game to recognize that a new Pokemon has been added to the game and allows them to connect via local wireless. So if the player were to turn the method of updating the game off, they would be unable to communicate with other games.

I apologise for keeping on replying, since we're more or less repeating ourselves, but let me say that I find this kind of thinking frustratingly unambitious and unprogressive. You can't make a perfect shield, but you don't have to make one either. You have to make one strong enough to withstand the spears you expect to encounter. This is a Pokémon game, not NASA's first manned mission on Mars. There won't be hackathons on creating exploits that destroy other players' gameplay experiences. Perhaps some people will try to find ways to play arround with the games' data, and maybe some will even achieve that, but I can assure you that any problem that will occur will be the exception, not the rule.

This is a fair point, it is not like there are a large number (or necessarily any, but I don't want to assume that) of people intentionally trying to ruin everyone's Pokemon experience.

There won't be more games broken from bugs than there in any other game. I shudder even on the thought that we have to debate on whether all of this is possible. For crying out loud, these ideas are common practice of modern online systems' features, we live in 2012.

They are common practice in games where the primary method of communication is over the internet, which is done over the developers' servers most of the time (I mentioned this earlier). Handheld games still have local communication as a major form of communication, and any change that would impact that is important. Very few handheld games receive patches that would have an impact on local wireless games (I don't know of any, but if you do, I'm happy to review them).

Mario Kart 7 had a patch that fixed the Wuhu Island and Bowser's Castle glitch shortcuts - in online play only. In local play, it would not be workable because that would mean one game would have the shortcut while another wouldn't. This may actually have been a situation where it would be possible to have only un-updated players have access to the shortcut in their games in local communication, but that would give them an unfair advantage over updated players.

Pokemon is even more of an issue, because having a Pokemon only exist in online play wouldn't work.

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

Here's the issue: how do the games know the difference between an official and unofficial patch? Sure, one can say "I'm v1.0.2" while another says "I'm v1.0.3", but a hacker could just as easily tell the game that the patch is the most recent.

Somehow! I'm sure they can make a more complicated version check system.

Pokemon is even more of an issue, because having a Pokemon only exist in online play wouldn't work.

For this very reason, they have more motivation to figure out a way to fix this in the local play of Pokémon.

Let's say that someone hasn't updated over the internet and that they have both StreetPass and auto-update disabled -- they play a local battle, and since the auto-update is disabled, the query "Your friend's game has received updates you have not. Would you like to update your game?" comes up. Even if they select 'No', they will still be able to play with their friend as long as their friend doesn't use any of the additional Pokémon. So, basically, even if updating was possible only through internet, because Game Freak couldn't be bothered with a local system, incompatibility would still be non-existant. It's the player's fault that he/she doesn't want to update, and if they can't, they can still play with the rest of Pokémon.

Quite honestly though, who doesn't have access to internet in one form or another? I'm sure there are some, but that's not a reason to hold back progress, especially considering that updating will be an infrequent event, not something you'll have to do every day.

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

Somehow! I'm sure they can make a more complicated version check system.

For this very reason, they have more motivation to figure out a way to fix this in the local play of Pokémon.

When I point out things that would not work, you seem to be telling me merely "They will find a way." and not providing any solution. This is the kind of blind faith I would rather avoid.

Let's say that someone hasn't updated over the internet and that they have both StreetPass and auto-update disabled -- they play a local battle, and since the auto-update is disabled, the query "Your friend's game has received updates you have not. Would you like to update your game?" comes up. Even if they select 'No', they will still be able to play with their friend as long as their friend doesn't use any of the additional Pokémon. So, basically, even if updating was possible only through internet, because Game Freak couldn't be bothered with a local system, incompatibility would still be non-existant. It's the player's fault that he/she doesn't want to update, and if they can't, they can still play with the rest of Pokémon.

The Pokemon still shows up in the other player's party in a trade, even if it isn't used. It also shows up as part of their potential party even if doing a 3v3 battle. And there's the minor Easy Chat System issue I mentioned, where the new Pokemon's name should be in there, but it won't be for the un-updated player.

Quite honestly though, who doesn't have access to internet in one form or another? I'm sure there are some, but that's not a reason to hold back progress, especially considering that updating will be an infrequent event, not something you'll have to do every day.

Most people have internet, not everyone has wireless internet. Being able to access the internet on a desktop computer connected via cable is one thing, being able to connect a handheld is another thing. I know quite a number of people who simply cannot connect to the internet on their DS (or 3DS) because they don't have wireless internet, or because they have a firewall that prevents it (although at least 3DS works with WPA).


EDIT: Also, we seem to have gone completely off topic, so I suggest if you want to continue this discussion we do it privately (or via VM) or in a thread dedicated to it.

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

I don't think this is off-topic. We're in a thread regarding the official announcement of Genesect, which we've known about since the very release of Black and White, discussing a potential way to make those announcements actually surprising.

When I point out things that would not work, you seem to be telling me merely "They will find a way." and not providing any solution. This is the kind of blind faith I would rather avoid.

We've gone from "there would be incompatibility if there were DLC Pokémon", to "yes, but people would have to use the internet to make updates", to "sure, but they might find exploits and make hacks, if local updates can happen", to "okay, but there's still this problem". Please.

Spoiler

If you put it this way though, here's a simple solution: the version number check doesn't necessarily have to be limited to comparing which of the two version numbers is the biggest. The version comparison could be accompanied with a number that proves the legitimacy of said version. The algorhythm to determine this number would obviously not be readily available and could be as complicated as possible. For reference, if that was a six-digit hexadecimal, there would be 6^16 possibilities for each version number. No easy feat determining it.

Another solution would be keeping the version number to separate physical space than the save file and the DLC data themselves, making it harder to get hold of it without specialized equiptment. This is pushing it of course; the "risks" of a "broken security problem" aren't big enough for them to bother with this.

The Pokemon still shows up in the other player's party in a trade, even if it isn't used. It also shows up as part of their potential party even if doing a 3v3 battle. And there's the minor Easy Chat System issue I mentioned, where the new Pokemon's name should be in there, but it won't be for the un-updated player.

What are you talking about? The connection wouldn't proceed before making sure both players carry the data needed to make it happen.

Most people have internet, not everyone has wireless internet. Being able to access the internet on a desktop computer connected via cable is one thing, being able to connect a handheld is another thing. I know quite a number of people who simply cannot connect to the internet on their DS (or 3DS) because they don't have wireless internet, or because they have a firewall that prevents it (although at least 3DS works with WPA).

I believe my previous post covers you.

 

[reginaldx12]

cool cool

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

I don't think this is off-topic. We're in a thread regarding the official announcement of Genesect, which we've known about since the very release of Black and White, discussing a potential way to make those announcements actually surprising.

But it is only related to the announcement by extension; what we're discussing is no longer about trying to make these announcements surprising, it's about whether it would be practical to do so. I don't see it as on-topic here.

We've gone from "there would be incompatibility if there were DLC Pokémon", to "yes, but people would have to use the internet to make updates", to "sure, but they might find exploits and make hacks, if local updates can happen", to "okay, but there's still this problem". Please.

My contention has always been that if it were to happen local updates would not happen due to exploitability and it would be internet-based, which would cause compatibility issues, so DLC Pokemon won't happen. My point was mainly targeted at the parts that I quoted, but there were other cases where you replied with similar unjustified faith.

And this comment seems to be more in opposition to your point earlier that we are just restating opinions at the moment than related to the section you quoted.

What are you talking about? The connection wouldn't proceed before making sure both players carry the data needed to make it happen.

What you suggested would occur when creating a direct link. So you're saying players on different versions couldn't do anything together if they were on different versions and one wouldn't update? The Union Room is not direct; it has all nearby people in the room appear there, and you make a direct link from there. So the issue is that people on different patches may not even appear unless you download a patch which you receive a prompt about the instant you enter, or if they did, you wouldn't be able to do anything with them without downloading a patch.

I believe my previous post covers you.

Not sure what you mean by this. Not having internet which a 3DS can connect to isn't that rare a situation.

 

[Ash_Pokemaster]

What you suggested would occur when creating a direct link. So you're saying players on different versions couldn't do anything together if they were on different versions and one wouldn't update? The Union Room is not direct; it has all nearby people in the room appear there, and you make a direct link from there. So the issue is that people on different patches may not even appear unless you download a patch which you receive a prompt about the instant you enter, or if they did, you wouldn't be able to do anything with them without downloading a patch.

Again, you're speaking based on how (you think) connections have worked on the games so far.

Let me explain how, say, a Union Room could work either way. Let's start with the assumption that someone enters the Union Room. Regardless to what Pokémon they carry, what are their intentions (trade, battle, chat, or whatever), or when they last updated their game, the only information that are universally shared within the Union Room is the player's name, sprite, Trainer ID, badges and whatever other basic info there are. When a second player does enter, the same info is shared. When the two peers make a link, it is then that the game checks on whether the two can interact. If they are on different updates, the game will offer a sync to be done. The player with the older update can decide on whether or not they want that update to happen. Regardless, if the other player doesn't carry a Pokémon whose data the other has, the process can proceed even if they decline the update. And don't get started on Easy Chat. You and I both know this is a brutally minor detail, and a mechanism they could shape to work however the heck they please.

This is a rather simple solution, and others could also be thought of.

Not sure what you mean by this. Not having internet which a 3DS can connect to isn't that rare a situation.

A person who can't setup a wireless connection on their 3DS is having much more to worry about before thinking about the updates on their Pokémon game. The system is made to strongy utilize internet on a variaty of things; digital downloads, 3D, often exclusive-content videos, strong communicational and community features, (obviously) online gaming -- and an array of other things. We're past the point where Wi-Fi shouldn't be considered a standard. It is a standard, and a person who can't utilize it, be that because lack of technical skills, needed equipment or internet connection, is missing out not just in gaming, but in other conveniences as well.

Fortunately enough, more and more people are learning how to utilize those technical advancements, so, I don't think this is really a problem. I'm not doubting the fact that there are people who haven't yet been able to use their wireless connection on their gaming devices, but that's a minority now, let alone in a couple years or so. After all, with strong communities like Bulbagarden, if someone decided to finally make their 3DS work online and had problems in doing so, there's no doubt that other members would help them achieve that with detailed directions. I know I would.

Point: the inability of some people to use a feature of the console is not a reason to hinder developers into utilizing it for progress -- especially when they can offer tons of alternatives for updating the games (like, besides local wireless connection and StreetPass -- McDonalds, Nintendo Zones, Pokémon Centers, GameSpot, and other places that previously featured real-life Pokémon events).

My contention has always been that if it were to happen local updates would not happen due to exploitability and it would be internet-based, which would cause compatibility issues, so DLC Pokemon won't happen. My point was mainly targeted at the parts that I quoted, but there were other cases where you replied with similar unjustified faith.

And this comment seems to be more in opposition to your point earlier that we are just restating opinions at the moment than related to the section you quoted.

The discussion is not about whether we are restarting our opinions. But in any case, what I'm what I'm trying to say is that you'll be able to find potential threats and issues to the system no matter how much we push it. We're not commited to make the DLC system on a forum thread, but I still feel members in this thread have offered solutions to enough queries that there's no point to take it further. Your thinking that a safe and good solution is impossible be made surprises me a bit.

If you're willing to believe it can't happen because of technicalities, you can be my guest. But the truth is that it can happen with everything going smooth and sweet. If you're against the policy of adding Pokémon mid-Gen, you may as well debate on that. In fact, I'm not absolutely convinced on how I'd like to see this happen either. Should plenty of Pokémon be introduced at one point of time? Should it just be the "hidden Legendaries"? Should formes be on that as well? There are a lot of things to consider, but certainly not whether it could technically be done.

 

[ArchedThunder]

Using DLC to make Hacked Pokemon wouldn't be a problem, it would work in the same way that any other game with DLC works, it would show the original or if it is 100% original it would not be able to play with other games. This is stuff developers figured out in 2004.