Planet Descent
Community => Mess Hall => Topic started by: Thomas on May 03, 2010, 01:49:53 PM
-
I've read the other thread about planetdescent.com, but couldn't get much out of it.
Just a simple question: Will the site come back?
I would like to release a new version of our Descent 3 installer soon, but I'm somehow not in the mood of having a link that points to a site totally unrelated to Descent 3. I hope that's understandable.
-
Your answer is "highly unlikely." I am currently (as soon as I get some software kinks out of my laptop) looking into backing up and uploading everything from the website's "WayBack" machine backup. I wouldn't take on that task if it were not quite likely that the site is gone for good.
If you were referring to this site as being unrelated to D3, then that's simply not true... We love and support anything D3 here (especially multiplayer). Feel free to host your tools here.
In summary: PD.com is very much unlikely to come back, and you are free to host any D3 tools you like here on PD.net. ;D
-
I was referring to the site that shows up when you type "planetdescent.com" in your browser. It's not at all related to Descent 3.
-
Just figured that the server tool needs to be changed too. :(
I reckon it's unlikely that the link will be removed from Vortex very soon. :(
There's also some wikipedia pages in different languages.
I guess there's much more.
Nice one, really nice.
Can someome please confirm that planetdescent.com is not coming back so that the removal tasks can be carried out?
As I said, I don't like it at all when things look like Descent 3 stuff but point to something entirely unrelated to Descent 3.
-
Oh, you're referring the game network page of IGN/Gamespy, correct?
www.planetdescent.com was one of the "Planet" sites on the Gamespy network. It seems that from the IGN site that all of the older "Planet" sites have been hit, as well. Sites such as Planet Doom are still around due to high activity. I'm sure that the actual Gamespy network site www.planetdescent.com will NOT[/i] be resurrected. There is some work in trying to retrieve parts of the site in order to open and host it elsewhere (probably under a different domain entirely or here on PD.net).
In order to answer your question, PD.com, as it was when it went down, will NOT be resurrected.
I hate saying that. :-\
-
I'm not fond of saying it either, but I'm forced to agree. PD.com is not likely to return at all.
-
Farewell, PD.com...
-
Thanks everyone.
It's a pity, but I believe it's going to be even worse if all references to PD.com that will be removed now have to be set up again later.
PD.net is a good replacement for PD.com.
AFAIK, Checkor and others have a backup of almost everything, so I reckon the loss is not that big of a deal. It's been expected anyway, sooner or later, though.
The reason why I started this thread was really not to moan for PD.com but more to avoid a lot of work adding all references again in case it comes back.
Would it make sense to wait, let's say, another month before removing all links to PD.com entirely?
-
Backups? That sounds very promising!
I wonder who owns the planetdescent.COM domain. Surely if it's not owned by IGN themselves you could just switch over its name servers to here.
-
Intellectual Property Department (TCFFC)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
P.O. Box 900
Beverly Hills CA 90213-0900
US
Write them a nice letter... I have been checking it's availability and if it comes up for a reasonable price I would buy it and redirect here.
-
Would it make sense to wait, let's say, another month before removing all links to PD.com entirely?
I haven't removed my PD.com links yet, just for that purpose. Probably in vain, but...one can hope. :)
But even if PD.com does prove to be salvagable, I think it would still be time to let it die, and just transfer everything here, to it's more modern sister site. Some people may gripe about that change, but I think in the long run, it would be the better idea, otherwise we just risk facing a repeat of this sometime in the future.
That is, unless, PD.com (if it really can be salvaged) can be wonderously upgraded to better compete on the modern world wide web, like PD.net, then I definitely wouldn't be against that. ;)
-
That is, unless, PD.com (if it really can be salvaged) can be wonderously upgraded to better compete on the modern world wide web, like PD.net, then I definitely wouldn't be against that. ;)
if that was to happen it would be worthless and horrible to continue to use GameSpy's servers. Just think about it. With FULL control we wouldn't have URL bugs, no limitations on what we can host, and all of that.
The question... who hosts it? It could be moved here, or even I have a webserver it could be moved to.
But this isn't going to happen unless we get really lucky.
-
How much Bandwidth and Space did the old site require?
-
How much Bandwidth and Space did the old site require?
Is that a serious question?
-
Sure is, there's lots of hosting plans that offer unlimited space and b/width. Hosts have got a lot more generous with how much CPU time you can tie-up as well. People expect lots of PHP, database queries etc. these days.
-
If it's unlimited, then what difference does it make how much .com used?
There is no such thing as an unlimited space and bandwidth plan. Read the fine print.
-
Sure is, there's lots of hosting plans that offer unlimited space and b/width.
Which one's that? ;)
-
Well certainly Dreamhost, although I'd hesitate to recommend them based on uptime. Having said that, their support is no slouch and the site performance is usually very high. Hosting companies that offer unlimited space and bandwidth are ten-a-penny. If you type "unlimited bandwidth hosting" into Google you'll see what I mean.
The way it works is that you're always limited in what you upload by your outgoing bandwidth and the fact that it has to be sent by FTP. I know that in Dreamhost's case an unlimited number of sub-ftp accounts is available and thereby a large amount of content can be contributed by many users. Most other hosts allow the same.
When it says unlimited, to all intents and purposes, it generally is. But as always read the reviews. Assuming the site's requirements aren't astronomical, you'll have no trouble getting cheap hosting, especially in the US. I'm lucky to be hosted for free on a friend's plan and my game has gigabytes of old versions uploaded. Nobody bats an eyelid. The actual owner has an installer for a mod he wrote, which is about 5gigs in itself.
-
Hosting companies that offer unlimited space and bandwidth are ten-a-penny. If you type "unlimited bandwidth hosting" into Google you'll see what I mean.
I did just that, here is the first result: http://www.findmyhosting.com/the-truth-about-unlimited-bandwidth/
-
I saw that too, I didn't think it's very accurate. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would a small website be good for an unlimited bandwidth plan when you run the risk of some guy on the server using too many resources?
Infact if you look here at the very same site its top recommendations are "unlimited" hosts as you can see: http://www.findmyhosting.com/compare-hosting/
Even they mustn't believe that.
'Unlimited' is a trade-off. If you need tonnes of space etc cheap and it's a non-profit site then... it's the perfect solution. Sure you've got to go for a decent host but... in my experience that article is just wrong.
It's just like unlimited broadband... sure, there is a limit, it's just set far higher than other products, to the extent that you just can't physically reach it.
Alternatively, you just work out how much resources you use and opt for a plan with accordingly big but finite numbers... which is kinda why I was asking in the first place, lol.
-
Article actually makes perfect sense to me. "Unlimited," by definition, means "not limited, unrestricted, infinite, vast," etc. and I know enough about computers, networking, and the such to know that there is no such thing as truly "unlimited" hosting.
It's a play on words, really. The hoster, when they say that, are probably saying that they have lots and lots of space and bandwidth available to the point that it SEEMS unlimited, but it certainly isn't. Eventually, the space CAN and WILL run out. BUT a good hosting service IMO will make sure that will never happen, by either clearing out clutter, or upgrading their equipment to house even more space.
The article also said that the whole gimmick (or whatever you want to call it) works best when the users don't go gung-ho on it and upload say a few hundred gigs in a very short time. They're counting on the users to upload lots of small stuff, like only a few megabytes or less at a time. Sure, it'll add up over time, but at a much slower rate, a rate that they can check and monitor during that time, and adjust accordingly.
I'll bet that's why you've gotten away with having lots of stuff being hosted at any given moment Crash. You say you have several gigs worth of uploaded data, which I'm certainly not contesting, but I bet that's mostly just an accumilation of lots of little stuff built up over time. Obviously, the hosting service is pretty dedicated to the "unlimited" illusion to be able to maintain that for so long.
Furthermore, it seems to me that I've noticed that a lot of those "unlimited" services charge money for use, which adds a whole new factor to it. If they were just providing that kind of service for free, they wouldn't be getting enough profit to maintain such a service forever. Charging for such services then makes sense, because the added income means money to burn making sure the "unlimited" illusion continues. Plus, charging money in turn stems the flow of uploaders somewhat, because most people are probably just going to be looking for someplace to host their stuff for free, and aren't willing to pay a price to do it (I certainly wouldn't), so that adds even more to the illusion, as it means not just anybody with an internet connection is uploading their stuff, but a much smaller and more finite number of users. Less people, the slower the seemingly "unlimited" space is used up.
But in short, think of the computers as mere containers. They have physical dimensions, and eventually, if you keep putting stuff into it, it will fill up. Thereby, you need another container to put stuff in.
You partly noted this already, but I just wanted to make sure we're absolutely clear on the fact that "unlimited" does not truly mean "unlimited," and that the article actually does raise a few good points.
K, I'm getting off my soap box now. :P
-
You're right, it is problematic. I think "vast" is still pretty applicable though.
The interesting thing about PCs is that their capacity is not limited by size but by advancement. 3 years ago a 2.5" HDD @7200RPM could handle 160GB, now it can handle 500GB.
I think the most important thing though is to find a host with a no-BS money-back guarantee. You try it out and if the service is bad, you leave. I've never come across supplementary charges based on consumption except on 'limited providers' where you are often penalised massively for exceeding your bandwidth limit. (Free hosts just make the site unavailable for a time but paid ones usually just invoice you into the ground). In my experience unlimited is always fixed-rate.
The whole Dreamhost arrangement works pretty well at the moment for me and I'm sure the company attracts very heavy users by its reputation. I used my old desktop to upload all my heavy stuff overnight. Plus there are easily about a dozen people like me on the same, single account. Had it been 20 gigs it would still be small change to them. Hosting 100 gigs or whatever is no big deal these days.
The only 'limited' plan that website recommends in its top 10 was one that offered a guaranteed 150GBytes, which I would have thought would be sufficient.
But if they are offering that, the implication is that the others would have to handle even more per customer. These 10 recommended hosts offer daily backups, money-back guarantees and phone support, which you won't get at Dreamhost and I think are the sign of a really excellent host.
I understand your suspicion though. I acknowledge the risk of being allocated on the same server as some idiot but having tried it both ways, I wouldn't consider going back. From my experience, it's an all-you-can-eat buffet, where the food is about as good as anywhere else.
I'm not too sure how much stock to put in that site anyway. That article about unlimited plans is simply bad advice and inaccurate and their #1 reviewed host may be a bunch of scam artists:
http://www.besthostratings.com/web-hosting/just-host-review-comments-6007.html
-
I didn't mean to imply you should take the recommendation of that one site, Google the name of the host before you buy. I only thought it was an appropriate article to come up in the number one spot. Personally I have been very happy with Bravenet. For just a little more than you quoted you get 30gig storage, 600gig/month bandwidth. Unless your planning the next YouTube or Facebook it will be a very long time before you exceed that, if ever. I guess you could call that 'virtually unlimited' and that would be closer to true than what you'll get from a so-called 'unlimited hosting' plan. In the 6 years I have been on Bravenet they have never charged me for anything other than the monthly fee and domain registration. No limit on the file type, or script type.
Edit: you edited your post while I was typing, I'm glad you found that info about justhost. Personally, I feel the concept of 'unlimited' is just too good to be true. Not to say they are all scammers, of course, but... caveat emptor... :o
-
I don't think I have 30GB of data that I really want to share with the world. I used to use a lot of Bravenet add-ons for my site in the days when Odigo Messenger was still operational and Bravenet had its own branded version.
When, I think it was Thomas, said "is that a serious question", my immediate reaction was: "Jesus, how much must they be planning on using"?
I think many people would agree that many Hosting review sites are as bland and faceless as the hosts they recommend and most of the reviews are paid for. Those sorts of reviews almost never match-up with customer feedback.
-
Not only that, but every category you click gives you the same results.
-
When, I think it was Thomas, said "is that a serious question", my immediate reaction was: "Jesus, how much must they be planning on using"?
Thomas wanted to know whether PD.com is coming back to either remove all references to that site or leave them in place for now.
I'm not at all interested in hosting providers. ;)
The question about the seriousness of the question was actually directed to the fact that we haven't got a clue how much space or bandwidth PD.com used. You really should have known that yourself.
I certainly haven't got a clue.
-
Well, just because the answer's unknown doesn't make the question stupid.
I have nothing to do with the running of the site and I don't know what provisions Gamespy makes available for community sites to measure their traffic etc.
Given that people here were presumably admins, there should still be indications from the number and average size of files combined with the use of metrics as to the nature of the site's bandwidth and space requirements.
These are things that site admins are often take a vague interest in, even if they aren't responsible for the hosting itself. But if that information isn't available, just say so.
-
But if that information isn't available, just say so.
I said: "I certainly haven't got a clue." ;)
-
But if that information isn't available, just say so.
I'm saying so.
Without going into details, at the time shortly before PD.com (and a bunch of other Planet sites) was shut down, 'a difficulty' with certain security authentication rules was preventing GameSpy/IGN from granting certain tools and abilities to the current site admins of PD.com, and was something the PD.com site admins were struggling with. When those Planet sites and PD.com were shut down, it was essentially "game over".
-
Right, I completely understand now.
That's unfortunate for everyone. I've never really visited Gamespy or IGN before, knew practically nothing about them but after this I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Cheap move on their part. I mean, granted Descent hasn't seen an official release for just over 10 years but even so, alienating players just to save what must have been a tiny amount of money is pretty tight.
Anyway, I signed up here just to see where the old site went and if you need any help, I'd be more than happy to oblige in any way.
BTW, Thomas - that is a very cool site of yours. It has some very interesting content and I think I'll avail myself of your Descent3 installer over the summer!
-
Well Crash, there wasn't really much they could do by the sound of it. The software was outdated and got hit by what must've been a pretty major hack attack.
-
I see, it's a shame how the script kiddies ruin anything and everything. They invest so much time tearing down everything you do because it's a fun game to them.
Only good thing is that it forces you to improve I suppose. Keeps you on your toes as a programmer.
-
Natural selection of the internet...
-
I think it was more likely a lack of support from IGN than a hack.
-
Yeah, if IGN had been just a little bit more helpful... >:(
-
Well, we really don't know just what happened so its rather rash in my opinion to blame it all on them. The software was so old, who's the say they could fix it at all? Any "fix" would've basically been the equivalent of us moving here. A total rebuilding of the site.
-
You are right, we don't know the whole story. The code, being a one-off custom, was certainly not IGN's responsibility. But we were told some time ago that support was being dropped, right around the time the url bug first showed up.
But 'support' doesn't mean IGN going in and fixing code, it means a lot of other things that IGN may have done like limiting text fields, or banning certain characters, and more importantly, working with staff to find a suitable compromise. It means restoring server-level backups when hardware fails, taking precautions with data when routine maintenance is done.
But of course, I am purely speculating, I really don't know.
-
And it doesn't really matter whether or not IGN could've helped or not, it's the fact that they quite clearly didn't even try to help. They just ignored PD.com in the end.
-
What you need to realize is that it wasn't just one site. There was literally dozens of sites affected from what I have read. Dozens of outdated sites that they could only try to fix, and hope that they fixed the exploit. Then a week later it gets attacked again and you get infected by a virus visiting it because they couldn't fix the outdated software.
Or they can just take it down and save you the hassle of getting a virus.
-
Where did you read that?
-
Didn't someone here say that all the other old sites are gone as well? The only sites left are the ones running the newer software.
-
Didn't someone here say that all the other old sites are gone as well? The only sites left are the ones running the newer software.
The old sites all used different custom software. If there was one exploit that could take them all down... well, then that's almost completely unlikely
-
What I can't believe is that no database or filesystem backups are available.
I'm sure you guys have probably thought of this already but if you give me an address I'll see to it once my exams finish.
-
Didn't someone here say that all the other old sites are gone as well? The only sites left are the ones running the newer software.
Possibly what you read was referring to the sites that were hosted by PD.com, like Suncho's kQuery tutorial, and Stormcrow's Tao of Descent.
-
Didn't someone here say that all the other old sites are gone as well? The only sites left are the ones running the newer software.
The old sites all used different custom software. If there was one exploit that could take them all down... well, then that's almost completely unlikely
Not true. I visited several sites that were nearly identical to PD. I think planet Doom was one of them.
And that is very possible WillyP, I'd entirely forgotten about those.
-
Nearly identical isn't the same. PD.com worked on ASP scripts originally written by Dave "Testiculse" Applegate (and later modified and added to by Thunderbird). Almost everything except for maybe a few frontpage elements were entirely custom, but designed to work mostly like the other sites.
And PlanetDoom is still around, so if it was really an exploit this big then it wouldn't be one of the sites using the "old software"
-
Hmm, so it is. I didn't see it before, I had assumed the list was sorted alphabetically by column.
-
There are some rather big misconceptions floating around in here right now. There was never any reference to the majority of the Planet Network being attacked via the same exploit that hit PD. Instead, from what I've gathered after poking around GameSpy/IGN's sites, it seems as though all of the Planet sites dedicated to non-current game franchises (such as Daikatana, lulz) have been removed, and the entire Planet Network listing has been redesigned (http://gamesites.ign.com/), with new URLs for most of the pages. (In fact, if you follow this link (http://www.gamespy.com/network/), you should see the original, more comprehensive Planet listing before being re-directed to the new page.) What it looks like to me is that GameSpy/IGN decided to redo the entire Planet Network concept, stripping it down to franchises that are still actively being pursued, such as Doom and StarCraft. The real question then becomes whether or not they told anyone before doing so...
As for the original problems with PD, it was never a question of GameSpy actively working against the site, but merely a lack of direct support. After the forum bugs started manifesting themselves, I tried to get in contact with GameSpy's support people, since Thunderbird apparently wasn't able to properly access the admin panel that provided direct contact. After a dead end or two, I finally got in touch with someone who mentioned GameSpy's servers no longer properly supporting the ancient version of ASP the site was written in. She provided me with the e-mail address of the Planet Network manager, but my attempt to contact him was unsuccessful. In the meantime, some of the forum bugs automagically resolved themselves, the eventual exploit forced TB to take down the active database portions of the site, and presumably as part of what I mentioned in the first paragraph, the site eventually went down altogether. I still intend to try shooting off an e-mail or two, just to see if I can get any more information on the status of the domain and/or database.
-
Wait. There was a Planet Daikatana? People played that game?
Actually, I've never played it and have often wondered if it's really as bad as people claim it is. After all, I actually thought Shadow the Hedgehog was a fantastic Sega game. ::)
-
Another 3 days to go, then the month is over.
Bye bye, PD.com. Forever.
Most people after that won't even know that you have existed at some point.
It's a pity, but live goes on. I'll remove all references to PD.com on the weekend and hope that I won't forget any. :)
-
Wait. There was a Planet Daikatana? People played that game?
Actually, I've never played it and have often wondered if it's really as bad as people claim it is. After all, I actually thought Shadow the Hedgehog was a fantastic Sega game. ::)
I loved Sonic Heroes...I've wanted to play Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic 2006 for a while, but alas, I don't have the consoles for them.
I only want to play Sonic 2006 because it has a cheezy story that is way too indepth, sort of like The Apocalyptic Factor, which I could never finish (game over on level 2, on Rookie.)
-
I have never played Sonic '06, but I have looked into it's storyplot very in depth, and personally think it's a lot better than people give it credit. In fact, there were a lot of ideas about that game were very good, and deserve more credit than it gets.
The reason it doesn't, is because the game is overall very poorly programed, very buggy and slapped together. I've heard several fans of the Sonic franchise agree that the game could've been one of the best Sonic games ever were it not for those two shortcomings in the programming department.
And while I'm on the subject...
Shadow the Hedgehog likewise had a good storyplot, but because it uses a gaming scheme where your actions in-game determine the game's final outcome, the individual pieces of the storyplot do not always fit together very nicely. And it has it's own fair share of bugs, but not as bad as Sonic '06. It also has a very different style of gameplay and feel that is somewhat foreign, or at the very least quite different, which is what most fans criticize the game for.
I believe both Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic '06 can be obtained for the PC now, but I have no clue how they would run, operate, or what system requirements there are. Downloaded a demo for Sonic Heroes once to my laptop, and despite running quite sluggishly (because the video card is crap) it preformed fairly well, so I imagine Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic '06 wouldn't run that differently.
Anyway, on the subject of PD.com, I've left the link in my favorites, and probably will leave there for awhile longer still. Whether it's out of pure stubbornness or as some kind of salute to the site, I don't know. :-\
-
Anyway, on the subject of PD.com, I've left the link in my favorites, and probably will leave there for awhile longer still. Whether it's out of pure stubbornness or as some kind of salute to the site, I don't know. :-\
Same here, I don't clean out my favorites, like, ever.