Slashdot Mirror


FileFront Shutting Down

Axodious writes "As of March 30th, FileFront, one of the most popular repositories for sharing online gaming videos, will be suspended due to the recent economic downfall. In a brief post, FileFront's management said, 'We regret to inform you that due to the current economic conditions we are forced to indefinitely suspend the FileFront site operations on March 30, 2009. If you have uploaded files, images or posted blogs, or if you would like to download some of your favorite files, please take this opportunity to download them before March 30th when the site will be suspended.' With FileFront shutting down, what will be next? Fileplanet?"

26 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. One Word: Bailout by Anenome · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clearly Filefront is too big to fail, let's talk bailout. I can have Obama on the phone in 15 minutes flat, how's 2... no, $10 billion sound?

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    1. Re:One Word: Bailout by Anenome · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you crazy, $20 million? WTF is wrong with you, $20 billion more like. Okay, $40 billion, you talked me into it. This is a crisis WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION, duh? To hell with it, new plan: we send $1 billion to everyone in the USA, that will -seriously- ramp up spending, I'm super seriously. And don't you dare call this trying to dig your way out of a hole :P

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    2. Re:One Word: Bailout by ahac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually agree. Only it should be the game industry that bails it out if they don't want to make legal downloading even more inconvenient and force even more users to warez.

    3. Re:One Word: Bailout by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why can't they just move to bittorrent? I'm gathering all my clan's favorite CTF maps and will be starting a torrent of them and publicizing it so people don't have to go register at file-sends-you-lots-of-spam-to-buy-their-service-planet.

      I will be sad to see FileFront go, they were my favorite. The least nonsense, just click a button and get a usually-anywhere-from-1.3-5megabytes/second-fast download.

  2. Re:Yay by Lifyre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed, everytime I was looking for a file and the only hosts were filefront and fileplanet I figured I didn't really need the file and went to go do something else.

    It's pretty much the same with Rapidshare etc... these day. If I can't get it from a website that isn't a pain to use or a torrent it's not important enough to download.

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  3. Clearly... by rincebrain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly, we mirror it all onto archive.org.

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  4. Re:Yay by ch1lly · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are thinking of Fileplanet. I'm sad to see this site go because at least for me the downloads were fast and very minor to no waits with no hassle, unlike the aforementioned.

  5. time for devs to host stuff by cliffski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always hated intermediary sites that exist purely because developers and publishers wanted to save a few pennies on file hosting.
    If, as a gem developer I want you to try my demos, watch my videos and look at my screenshots, I'll host them myself. That way I have 100% uptime, I know tjhey are easy to find, there are no ads or registration screens or other fuss to get between my customers and my product, and both me and my customers are happy.

    I know that letting filefront host stuff would save me bandwidth, but these days bandwidth is cheap, and I work hard to keep demo file-sizes down. the idea of a 1 gig demo for a game is laughable.

    Plus, demos and trailers are MARKETING. Of course I want to get this stuff direct to gamers as easily and hassle-free as possible.
    I'm sure some big companies who are incapable of making games under 3 gigs will mourn the loss, but I can't say I'm one of them. Direct hosting FTW.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:time for devs to host stuff by mlts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is that some file hosting is pretty expensive, especially if the demo program is pretty big. A lot of ISPs will charge by the gig, so people accessing a multi-gigabyte app will get expensive quite quickly. Even something fairly small (60-100 megs) will add up fast if it gets popular.

      I know registration sucks, but downloads before Web, FTP and others were pretty rough. If you were new to the BBS scene, you had to either pay a sysop for download credit, or find someway of finding something relevant you can upload before you could download a single bit. Of course, you had to make some inane posts to the board's forums due to post/call radios, and all this was assuming you could get something else than a busy signal if you are trying to get to a popular board.

    2. Re:time for devs to host stuff by jalefkowit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is that some file hosting is pretty expensive, especially if the demo program is pretty big.

      Maybe if publishers had to bear the cost of hosting multi-hundred-megabyte patches themselves instead of shunting it off onto third parties, they'd work harder before release to ensure that their product won't require multi-hundred-megabyte patches...

    3. Re:time for devs to host stuff by cliffski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. With the exception of us indie devs, the ability to put together games in small file sizes has become a lost art. People actually ship demos with wavs rather than oggs, and bmps when jpgs would do. Identical geometry and textures get released in a single installation, and textures are often larger than they will ever appear onscreen.
      The worst sin is devs which release demos containing tons of art and sound assets that can never be used in the demo level. This still goes on, because nobody is ever at any stage given an incentive to keep the filesize down.
      I pay per gigabyte when people download my demos, and I keep them as small as I can.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  6. Good and bad news! by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is both good and bad news.

    The Good: FileFront is shutting down, so all of the random junk probably won't have a home and all of the good stuff will find it worthwhile finding a better host that isn't full of adverts and idiots. (I set up one of my websites because the FileFront site was such a horrible place with annoying members and a high noise to signal ratio)

    The Bad: The idiots will have to find somewhere else, so we'll have otherwise usable sites suddenly flooded with the "give me it on a silver platter because I can't be bothered while I spout gibberish in badly written and incomprehensible sentences".

    1. Re:Good and bad news! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's wrong with filefront?

      I remember looking for an obscure Supreme Commander patch(version x.x.xx.xx.xxxx to version x.x.xx.xx.xxxx), and that was one of the few sites that had it. Fileplanet would throw me in a queue for 45 mins, then give me sub-par DL speeds. Filefront always maxed out my 3mbit connection, for every download, and let me download it right away.

      I have adblock, so... what ads? :P

      I liked FileFront.

    2. Re:Good and bad news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Posting anonymously becuase I'm going against Slashdot groupthink, and am likely to be modded down.

      I have adblock, so... what ads? :P

      This is probably what killed their site. Hosting -- once you get to the large VPS/dedicated server level -- is expensive. Hosting for a high bandwidth site is extremely expensive.

      They couldn't pay their bills because advertising on the 'net is a failing industry. The reason for that is people like you blocking adverts.

      I'm sure plenty of people will reply to this saying that adverts on many sites suck, are intrusive and annoying. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean you should block all ads on every site. How are medium-large site owners supposed to pay their bills?

      Working on the Internet is an utterly thankless task sometimes.

    3. Re:Good and bad news! by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason for that is people like you blocking adverts.

      The sites don't get money from just people who visit the site and see the ads, people have to actually click them. I understand your point but your theory presumes that people who block the ads would click them if they didn't block them.

      Before I began using Firefox with adblock I considered ads as mainly a nuisance because, like you said, they were often intrusive and made it harder to find the stuff I was looking for from the site. Due to this I simply learned to ignore the ads and I can count on one hand's fingers the occasions on which I actually clicked some ad.

      The problem is not with the people. People block the ads because they're annoying and hence not very interesting. The problem is the ads themselves. The advertisement tactic used in the net is too much based on the same tactic companies use on the streets: The bigger the better. On the streets this work because the bigger and more colourful the ad is the more chance there is that people will notice it. However, when you make the ads on the net big, colourful and often moving (sometimes even with sound effects) and then fill a webpage with these ads they stop working and instead of arousing interest you're just making people annoyed.

      I can't see why people would click on ads they consider irritating even if they would see them. Now that there are free and easy-to-use tools that efficiently block the ads of course people will use it, but it's not their "fault", it's the advertisers fault for making ads too damn frustraiting. So in short: Ad blocking is not the cause, it's an effect. The core of the problem lies within the business model of web advertising.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    4. Re:Good and bad news! by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is probably what killed their site. Hosting -- once you get to the large VPS/dedicated server level -- is expensive. Hosting for a high bandwidth site is extremely expensive.

      So what you need is a sustainable income to support it, which adverts aren't.

      They couldn't pay their bills because advertising on the 'net is a failing industry. The reason for that is people like you blocking adverts.

      No, as pointed out by other people, the reason it is failing is because of the way the industry behaves. Of the tens of thousands (or more) of ads that AdBlock has blocked for me I'd probably have clicked on a grand sum of about two of them at most, if it was really interesting. Maybe if things were less intrusive and more targetted to the audience of the site showing the advert then people might be more likely to click on them and less likely to block them.

      How are medium-large site owners supposed to pay their bills?

      Targetted affiliate links? Targetted self-hosted adverts? Sponsored links? I'm hardly doing any work and every month I've more than recovered the cost of my VPS account, sometimes several times over. That's just with two affiliate links that I use in targetted locations appropriate to each link.

      Working on the Internet is an utterly thankless task sometimes.

      Exactly, and people shouldn't expect to be bailed out by visitors and advertising. I host my sites a) because I want to b) because I enjoy working with it and improving it and c) because I know that people are making use of things even if they don't say anything or give any feedback.

  7. Re:Yay by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What? Are you sure you aren't confusing anything? FileFront was totaly awesome not too long ago... until it suddenly wasn't. You could easily browse the files by games and categories (mods, maps, models, etc), then select one of the few mirrors and download it without any further bullshit. FilePlanet, on the other hand, was pretty bad and IIRC required registration or even paid subscription to get anything, and then you still had to wait in the queue before you could start downloading.

    FileFront's demise for me came when I once couldn't download anything. I don't remember the specific error, but at first it looked like it might be a temporary problem which could be solved by simply trying later. I never managed to bypass it though, and a few searches revealed that it was a common error for european users. Apparently this was their way of not servicing some countries/regions.

    Rapidshare's entirely different matter, but even then it's not that bad if you need just one file as all you have to deal with is a captcha.

  8. Re:Yay by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 4, Interesting

    do a favor for all of us: download it, then seed a new torrent on TPB

    I would be wary about downloading content like game patches from a torrent site. There is a long history of crackers using altered versions of patches and keygens to spread malware.

    I have always thought that having to go to a third party site like FileFront to download a patch for a game was ridiculous. If a publisher is releasing a patch they should host it themselves not make their customers jump through hoops registering on a third party site and queueing for a download. And the same goes for games that rely on P2P based updater programs to patch the game.

    WoW is one of the worst for this, I don't want to have to download patches using their custom BitTorrent client when it would be 10 times faster from a direct download. I realise that using BitTorrent spreads the load when a new patch comes out but it also hands the bandwidth bill to their customers, some of whom are on low cap connections and just want the patch they need not to burn through a GB of their bandwidth uploading it to other people.

  9. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Blizzard's BT client does have an option to disable the p2p function and directly download the patch from their servers. This is generally significantly faster than using the p2p option anyway.

  10. Re:Yay by jalefkowit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would be wary about downloading content like game patches from a torrent site. There is a long history of crackers using altered versions of patches and keygens to spread malware.

    This wouldn't be an issue if publishers provided md5 checksums for the patches, so you could confirm it was unmodified. Unfortunately since Windows doesn't come with a tool like md5sum, most game publishers don't seem to think it's useful to provide checksums for their files. Grrr.

  11. Re:Yay by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would be wary about downloading content like game patches from a torrent site. There is a long history of crackers using altered versions of patches and keygens to spread malware.

    I've heard many people make this claim before but I've never ever seen it in practise, and I've been using game cracks since I first acquired them with a 2400 baud modem. In my experience the cracking scene is basically a global competition to become the most reputable, famous, skillful cracker. Maybe your experience differs but I've had absolutely nothing but convenience and quality in game cracks over the last 16 years or so.

  12. Re:Yay by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've heard many people make this claim before but I've never ever seen it in practise

    A lot of keygens and cracks have trojans in them, less so with releases from major groups but often the cracks the groups release are altered and reposted with trojans tacked on. There was a trend at one point for hiding trojans in fake keygens that sniffed the registry for cd keys. These cd keys were then added into new versions of the 'key-gens' that were actually just a static list of keys pretending to be generated by the program.

    As you say the people who actually crack the games have their own ethics so their releases are normally free of malware but it is trivial for someone with no such ethics to download their release and add malware to it.

  13. Re:Yay by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've heard many people make this claim before but I've never ever seen it in practise, and I've been using game cracks since I first acquired them with a 2400 baud modem. In my experience the cracking scene is basically a global competition to become the most reputable, famous, skillful cracker. Maybe your experience differs but I've had absolutely nothing but convenience and quality in game cracks over the last 16 years or so.

    It depends on where you get the cracks. If you've got direct connections "in the scene," yeah, you're pretty safe. OTOH, if you rely on things like IRC channels or .box.sk to find your cracks, then the guys making the cracks/keygens available usually aren't the same ones who wrote it. It's passed through a lot of grubby paws of people who don't care about cracking reputation.

  14. Re:Yay by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't remember FileFront, but I agree with Rapidshare, and especially Fileplanet. I honestly couldn't figure out how Fileplanet stayed in business -- I can't think of a single customer who actually liked it, let alone wanted to pay for it.

    The gaming industry is growing up. Amazon S3 is a genuine option. So is Steam, for those trying to sell a game. In fact, I'm pretty sure Fileplanet predates BitTorrent -- and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it change much since then.

    Granted, others are saying FileFront was better, but I really don't care. At the end of the day, what they're offering is a hard disk attached to an HTTP server. That's like ten minutes of work for a competent admin, and both have been commoditized -- as a single entity, with things like Amazon S3.

    So, even if it was a good ludicrously obsolete relic of the dot-com boom, it's still a ludicrously obsolete relic of the dot-com boom.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  15. Re:Yay by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fair point. My sources are reliable (megagames.com and gamecopyworld.com) but I suppose I take for granted however difficult it may be to learn about sites like these for the first time.

  16. So long, good friend! by QAPete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is personally very sad to me. When my team and I set up BeyondUnreal back in 2001, FileFront was one of our original two file mirrors (eDome was the other). I remember clearly speaking with the great Mark Molinaro of FileFront, who has always been a huge proponent of the open source community, and who was 100% behind supporting our growing Unreal-powered gaming community. Never once in all that time did FileFront waver in their support of our efforts.

    Unfortunately, this is a sign of the times. As the ad revenue streams dry up, it becomes more difficult to run ad-supported businesses. eDome suffered the same fate: there was no money in the file hosting business.

    Farewell, FileFront, and thank you for being such a good friend to literally THOUSANDS of online communities just like mine.