Here's a quick guide to perform Bloodborne's item dupe exploit [Update]
Do you need to even the odds in Bloodborne? Then this item dupe exploit will be the ace up your sleeve.
[Update: From Software and Sony have released patch 1.02 for Bloodborne which puts the kibosh on this exploit.]
Original story:
Bloodborne is a pretty hard game, which is why players should try to use anything and everything in order to gain an advantage over the enemies you’ll face. Sure, you could follow our Boss or co-op guides, but a newly-discovered exploit can give Hunters the unfair advantage they so desperately need.
The exploit allows you to create a duplicate of any item in a pretty simple way. Before we get into it, we should note that performing this exploit will go against the real Bloodborne experience you’ve paid for, so only consider this exploit if you really need the help.
The first thing you’ll need to do is create an alternate character and progress them through the game far enough so they gain access to the first lantern in Central Yharnam. Once you do, transport yourself to the Hunter’s Dream and then log back into your main character. Once there, you’ll want to empty out your storage chest.
With your storage chest emptied with your main character, go to your alternate character and buy a pebble. Store the pebble you just purchased into your alternate’s chest, making sure that’s the only thing in there. Now go back to your main character and decide what it is you want to duplicate, noting that only items you can have multiples of are the only ones that can be duped. That means no duping of weapons.
Once you have in mind what you want to duplicate, put one of that item in your storage chest as your main character. Now go and purchase a lot of pebbles, making sure to reach the limit you can carry, which is 20. Once you reach the limit of pebbles you can carry, the extra pebbles will show up in your chest as duplicates of the item you currently have in there. For example: if you purchase 5 extra pebbles that you can’t carry, those pebbles will be transferred to your chest and will show up as 5 of whatever item is in there.
As with all exploits, we're sure this will be addressed in a future update to Bloodborne, so don't ponder whether or not you should do it for too long. You'll probably miss the boat on this one pretty soon.
-
Daniel Perez posted a new article, Here's a quick guide to perform Bloodborne's item dupe exploit
-
-
-
-
-
I guess you could go with the idea that "cheats" could be used to describe things purposefully put in the game, like how some (especially older) games have a cheats menu that you can unlock. Whereas an "exploit" could be construed as something that takes advantage of a bug or something similar.
Regardless, using either in an MP game is shitty and posting explicit directions on how to do it doesn't really sit well with me :-/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'll amend - a single player game with an optional multiplayer element then.
http://kotaku.com/a-helpful-guide-to-bloodbornes-confusing-multiplayer-op-1693582137
Sounds to me like you have to invite people to come into your game.
Makes this situation slightly different, but really not at all. I still think people are losing their shit for no reason.-
-
Huh, really? That's different from what I've read elsewhere. But whatever, as you said, the item dupe makes little difference and the rage in this thread is really uncalled for. If this was a guide to wall-hacking or something in a true competitive multiplayer game I'd get it, but this doesn't seem comparable at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
the dude obliges
http://www.davidclachman.com/miscellanea/gallery1/bunyan.JPG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This game is barely online anyway. I play it and love it, and I'm still wondering why there is so much outrage. Especially now that we can limit who gets pulled into our games via the password. You can basically choose who can and cannot join your game, so what does it matter if people use exploits in their own bubble of players? Plus with more exposure, more fans of the game will go to the devs to try and get it fixed.
-
-
Does it? I played Archeage and there was an exploit that was being used for months that a handful of people knew about to completely manipulate the market and probably enrich themselves in real life with tons of money because of a dupe exploit.
It wasn't until someone else found out how to do it by dumb luck and broadcast it to everyone that it was fixed within 24 hours. If not for that, it would have gone on quite a bit longer and made the game more unfair for much, much longer.
I don't know how good From Software is with exploits, but broadcasting the exploit to as much people as possible forced their hand to fix it much, much faster than if not reported at all.
If you don't want this exploit further publicized, one could assume you have been using the exploit yourself or that you don't mind the exploit not being fixed.
Broadcasting is the quickest way to get it fixed. -
-
-
-
-
-
I am reluctantly a proponent of "responsible disclosure" but there have been many cases where it has resulted in worse security. Part of me wants to return to the world of "full disclosure"... some companies have been really slow to patch significant holes and they still whine and blame the security researchers just as much. Google found this out with the reactions to Project Zero which was still offering 90 days + 2 weeks! And yet the messengers are still the bad guys.
-
i don't see this any problem with responsible disclosure here. google offers companies a reasonable amount of time to fix the bug. responsible disclosure doesn't mean giving the developer an infinite amount of time to fix it.
there's not really anything you can do about people's reactions. i think it's fairly self-evident that this would be the same or worse if they went to "instant disclosure"-
Vulnerabilities got patched faster in the 0-day era of "full disclosure". As a developer, 90+14 sounds reasonable, but as a user running exploitable code and not even aware of it, 90+14 is pretty bad. Not to mention whatever time it takes to validate and roll out patches in the case of corporate IT. For an esoteric hole, 90+14 might be OK but for something likely to be discovered by others, it's flirting with danger and allowing a culture of tolerance towards products with continual security issues. Regardless, Google still got accused of being antagonistic even with the 90+14.
I wonder if moving to a "name and shame" method would help where you give 90+14 for detailed disclosure but have a 0-day release of a very vague description and the type and severity of the vulnerability would help. Then companies would be more incentivized to fix it quickly and repeat offenders would stick out more in the press.-
your suggestion at the end seems reasonable to me. you just want to avoid handing the exploit directly to script kiddies before a patch is made. otherwise you're hanging all the users out to dry; they can't shield themselves from the vulnerability and now everybody's attention is on it and everyone knows how to exploit it. companies need to be somehow incentivized to fix security holes quickly without killing the victims in the process
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I never encountered a hacker in any souls console game and only once in DS2 on PC. I did however run into a few people abusing exploits like this, most notably the Stone Giant Sword + Crystal Magic Weapon exploit in DS1 that would insta-kill everything in a huge radius, which has since been fixed. I also saw ghosts of people abusing the Dragon's head infinite souls glitch in Firelink Shrine (meaning they were online).
Also, just because it doesn't rate high on your "ridiculous advantage index" doesn't mean it has zero impact. There are plenty of ways to abuse this to gain unfair advantage in PVP. The advantage may not be huge, but it's still cheating.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Left Sharknews
http://i.imgur.com/OXfzugf.png
-
-
-
-
-
Can't tell if serious. They definitely knew about the exploit before this article was posted. No non-indie dev turns a patch around that fast. Playstation cert alone probably took a day at least.
Or maybe this is all an elaborate troll and you knew the fix was coming today. I dunno. This article and thread make me uncomfortable so I'm going to stand over there now. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was more-or-less just being cheeky and agog about the sheer mass of response, but in all seriousness, constructive criticism can be positive too. "I liked this, and here's why." Or even, "I liked this aspect, and would like to have seen more exploration of it." That sort of feedback can lead to plenty of discussion too, though likely not as much as people arguing, I suppose.
-
This is what this thread looks like to me:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X2xlQaimsGg/maxresdefault.jpg
-
-
-
-
or interviews and hands on that I don't see on other sites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_5FHsXZog
http://www.shacknews.com/article/88865/breach--clear-deadline-designer-discusses-the-jump-to-steam-early-access
http://www.shacknews.com/topic/oculus-vr
http://www.shacknews.com/article/88732/valves-htc-re-vive-is-a-formidable-opponent-to-oculus-rift
-
-
-
I still think one thing that should be considered in a chatty update is having articles post as sub threads to a single thread that lasts for about a week for example Monday-Sunday. So basically a Shacknews of the week thread that way it's all in one spot that can be easily scanned through in the chatty. I think it would be better than a series of individual threads that quickly disappear into the abyss that is the back pages. Plus it would aggregate all of the commentary into sub threads and make articles more visible.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-