PSN Blackout: You Get What You...Pay For

1356789

Comments

  • dougrdougr Posts: 124
    edited April 2011
    hostgator reported... get lost!
    ______________________________________________
    RT16 x4, LS/fx x2, CS350 x1, HK247, B&K av5000, B&K avp-2030, pio bdp-51fd, InFocus X10 and a $13 sheet of doable :)
  • SherardpSherardp Posts: 8,051
    edited April 2011
    PS3 sucks ****; there I said it.






    Just kidding guys. Don't go flaming me now. I don't think Demi meant any harm in what he was trying to get across. I do think Sony could have been a tad proactive on the issue, especially when there were already so many complaints regarding hackers **** up the Call of Duty games. Hopefully they get it right, and all the PS3 gamers can get back on track. I actually thought about picking up a PS3 since I have buddies on that platform as well. Happy gaming fellas..............
    Shoot the jumper.....................BALLIN.............!!!!!

    Home Theater Pics in the Showcase :cool:

    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showcase/view.php?userid=73580
  • ysssysss Posts: 213
    edited April 2011
    If this is an 'I told you so' thread, where's the original warning post?
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    ysss wrote: »
    If this is an 'I told you so' thread, where's the original warning post?

    In order to show that paying for XBox Live Vs. Free PSN has been an issue of contention for years in this section of the forum, here are some of the endless examples from over the years:
    leroyjr1 wrote: »
    gotta love the FREE ps3....:biggrin:
    leroyjr1 wrote: »
    Yes ps3 online is free.
    And like all things in life, you get what you pay for. :biggrin:

    mrbiron wrote: »
    I wonder if this pertains to you. Are you playing on a PS3?

    http://blog.games.yahoo.com/blog/323-ps3-hacks-render-modern-warfare-2-online-modes-unplayable-say-fans
    tommyboy wrote: »
    LOL to any ps3 fanboys bragging they didn't have to pay 50 dollars A YEAR.
    tommyboy wrote: »
    I wasn't trying to make any point that xbox is better than ps3, I only said that to those ps3 fanboy jerkoffs who pretend they are smarter cause they don't have to pay for online service.

    I wish I could get into the ps3, but I never liked the controller since the original ps. And since most of the games I play are multi-platform anyway, might as well play with a controller I like.
    Toxis wrote: »
    Wow so now that someone likes that he doesn't have to pay twice for Internet use (unless you're stealing net from your neighbor), he's a ps3 fanboy jerkoff? Well I'd say your a server snob with a subpar machine. Oh wait. I forgot xbox guys throw insults but don't like them back. My fault. I apologize.
    Demiurge wrote: »
    There's no need to be dishonest. The fanboy jerkoffs are the ones who deny that the online gaming experience on XBox 360 is superior to the PS3, and that the yearly cost is well worth the money. Don't deny its better, either. I had a PS3 and it was horrible for online gaming. You get what you pay for. There's no need to take it out on those who made a more informed choice. Save for a handful of exclusives, I realized all I had was a glorified Blu-Ray player and sold it.

    If you weren't being loyal to a brand for no good reason, you'd admit that the above is all true.
    I'm not gonna be as mean as that, but you do have to consider the difference between a regulated network such as Xbox Live and the pretty much unregulated PSN. Because of the PSN architecture, there's pretty much nothing Sony or Infinity Ward can do about this problem (which is probably going to become a common issue now that the PS3 jailbreak is in the wild). The same problem exists on PC, where mods run rampant. Then you look at Xbox Live, where yeah... you pay to use the service... but they have the ability to ban cheaters, suspend accounts, they have a report system and staff who can jump into games on-the-fly with people who have been reported to confirm their in-game behavior or cheating, and install new copy protection checks to at least help stop pirates and modders from ruining the online experience (as Microsoft just did two days ago when they updated to block "backups" of MW2 and Black Ops).

    Not a fanboy thing... Just something to keep in mind if stuff like this annoys you. It's far less prevalent on Xbox Live, whereas PS3 and PC are basically the Wild West with no sheriff.
    HTguru1982 wrote: »
    Wow. That's f***ed up. This whole time I regretted buying a 360 over the PS3 but now I'm thinking it wasn't such a bad idea.
    Demiurge wrote: »
    I already pay a sensible fee to game online without the headaches other consoles have, but I won't be paying anything additional to game online with a specific game.
    PrazVT wrote: »
    I wouldn't. I can live with paying for XBOX Live b/c the QOS is good. But I'm not paying anything more.
    I see your point on Xbox Live, but when you compare it to the nightmare that PSN is, it's worth $3. But if consoles aren't your primary source of gaming, I definitely understand why you don't want to pay it. Still, the PC offers absolutely nothing like Forza 3's online community, at least in the racing genre.
    bevo wrote: »
    You are the first person I have ever say they prefer the PSN over xbox live., that has actually used both. I really can't think of anything that would make PSN better. The matchmaking system is horrible on the PS3, and cross game invites can not happen. I do love my PS3, but xbox live is better in every way then the PSN. The only thing PSN has going for it, is that it is free, and that is going to stop soon too. Soon to use all of the PSN features you will have to pay over 80$ a year. I understand though that when something puts a bad taste in your mouth, like xbox live has, then it's hard to be unbiased.

    Can we stop pretending like this is some new issue and I'm a big bad guy for bringing it up in it's own thread (which it merited, due to the seriousness of it).

    Aside from the important information for PSN users, this was also a 'neener neener neener' post to those who claimed it was great that PSN was free, as opposed to having to pay for it. Many of us have been arguing you get what you pay for.

    I'm not, in any way, mocking people who may have to cancel credit cards and other BS. If anyone took it that way, I'm sorry, but it was clearly not my intent. I don't know if my data is still on PSN or not, so this could also be affecting me as well as several of my friends who still have their PS3.
  • FaceFace Posts: 14,714
    edited April 2011
    SonyIsntGoodWithComputers.gif
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    BAH HA HA HA HA! Nice one, Face!
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Aside from the important information for PSN users, this was also a 'neener neener neener' post to those who claimed it was great that PSN was free, as opposed to having to pay for it. Many of us have been arguing you get what you pay for.

    The problem is, it is completely impossible to say that Sony's pricing model is directly at fault for hackers being able to break into their servers. Now matter how much money you throw at network security, no system is completely fail safe.

    You are greatly over simplifying the issue at hand by just assuming throwing money at it would make it go away (and also assuming Sony would have used the money in such a way to begin with). If anything I would place more emphasis on Microsoft's experience and knowledge with computers and servers versus Sony's as opposed to a simple pricing model difference.
  • ysssysss Posts: 213
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    The problem is, it is completely impossible to say that Sony's pricing model is directly at fault for hackers being able to break into their servers. Now matter how much money you throw at network security, no system is completely fail safe.

    You are greatly over simplifying the issue at hand by just assuming throwing money at it would make it go away (and also assuming Sony would have used the money in such a way to begin with). If anything I would place more emphasis on Microsoft's experience and knowledge with computers and servers versus Sony's as opposed to a simple pricing model difference.

    +1

    Thoughtful & informative post, presented in a neutral and level headed manner.

    On top of the variables mentioned above, Sony was also idiotic enough to have kicked the lawless frontier of internet depravity known as 4chan.
  • FaceFace Posts: 14,714
    edited April 2011
    I heard this was done because of Sony's actions against websites with the PS3 jailbreak code.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
  • ysssysss Posts: 213
    edited April 2011
    Face wrote: »
    I heard this was done because of Sony's actions against websites with the PS3 jailbreak code.

    Specifically a hacker known as Geohot. He was responsible for various iPhone jailbreaking exploit/tools as well.
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    The problem is, it is completely impossible to say that Sony's pricing model is directly at fault for hackers being able to break into their servers. Now matter how much money you throw at network security, no system is completely fail safe.

    You are greatly over simplifying the issue at hand by just assuming throwing money at it would make it go away (and also assuming Sony would have used the money in such a way to begin with). If anything I would place more emphasis on Microsoft's experience and knowledge with computers and servers versus Sony's as opposed to a simple pricing model difference.

    I'm sorry, but you're putting words in my mouth that I never put in a post.

    You've created a strawman argument because I did not say that money means that a system is fail safe. I went out of my way earlier to say that it doesn't. I am saying that it absolutely helps. Are you going to deny that's true?

    You are kidding yourself if you think that Microsoft doesn't have heaps more interest in protecting their paying customers as opposed to Sony, who is protecting non-paying customers. It's reported that PSN has 70 million users. Do the math. I guarantee that the infrastructure at Microsoft is far superior to that of Sony alone just due to the fact that they have revenue has been coming in to cover the costs associated with it.

    The main outrage levied at Sony is over their lackadaisical response to an issue that's been going on for well over a week now. It was only yesterday that they finally informed people that they were indeed breached, that personal information from PSN was obtained, and that they may have obtained credit card information illegally from them as well.
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    Its not paying versus non-paying... they money is there, just in different places. Do you honestly believe that Sony has "heaps" less interest in protecting sensitive information of their paying customers simply because their pricing model is different? Forbes has already put out an estimate that the total cost of this breach could reach as high as $24 BILLION dollars. Do you honestly believe a bunch of Sony executives sat around in a board room and discussed various network security options at various price points and said "Well, lets choose the cheapest weakest security we can since our fees are billed up front as opposed to over time like at Microsoft".

    It just seems so silly to me that you think this multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation would have less interest in preserving *paying* customer privacy than a different similar company with a different pricing model.

    I *understand* your anger and frustration at the silly jabs from PS3 users over paying for Xbox Live. I *believe* you when you say the online experience is better on Xbox (never tried it, but I can easily see room for improvement on the PS3). It just seems to me that your anger over the jabs has clouded your judgement on this issue.


    Its like laughing at one credit card company with a security breach, and saying "See, they don't charge an annual fee like my credit card does. You get what you pay for!!!!!"
  • cokewithvanillacokewithvanilla Posts: 1,774
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »

    It just seems so silly to me that you think this multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation would have less interest in preserving *paying* customer privacy than a different similar company with a different pricing model.


    Its like laughing at one credit card company with a security breach, and saying "See, they don't charge an annual fee like my credit card does. You get what you pay for!!!!!"

    Exactly.

    It's funny though, someone once told me that people enjoy walking around the mall and paying crazy prices for all their stuff simply because they enjoy spending money, and it makes them happy. I can only imagine that the "you get what you pay for" crowd is comprised of these people, who like nothing more than spending their money (or running up their credit card) and would love nothing more than to point out the great things they've gotten because they spent this money.
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    Its not paying versus non-paying... they money is there, just in different places. Do you honestly believe that Sony has "heaps" less interest in protecting sensitive information of their paying customers simply because their pricing model is different? Forbes has already put out an estimate that the total cost of this breach could reach as high as $24 BILLION dollars. Do you honestly believe a bunch of Sony executives sat around in a board room and discussed various network security options at various price points and said "Well, lets choose the cheapest weakest security we can since our fees are billed up front as opposed to over time like at Microsoft".

    More false narratives. There's lost revenue. Where, pray tell, are they making up for all of the costs associated with network security? From sales of TVs and AVRs? What does that tell you? Wherever they're getting the money from is irrelevant. What is entirely relevant is all of the lost revenue that Sony execs have left on the table that could have been going to building a more iron clad infrastructure.
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    It just seems so silly to me that you think this multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation would have less interest in preserving *paying* customer privacy than a different similar company with a different pricing model.

    23 millions users on XBox Live (2010) paying $50 a month (yes, $49.99) = $1,150,000,000 per year in revenue.

    Yet, you think this makes no difference in how a company deals with the security for a service they're offering for free? News flash, but companies the size of Microsoft aren't shifting money around from sales of Windows 7 to fund their online gaming operation. If that's what Sony is doing, it's pure folly.
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    I *understand* your anger and frustration at the silly jabs from PS3 users over paying for Xbox Live. I *believe* you when you say the online experience is better on Xbox (never tried it, but I can easily see room for improvement on the PS3). It just seems to me that your anger over the jabs has clouded your judgement on this issue.

    I'm not angry or frustrated so much as I'm amused by the responses to this thread. My logic is and has been perfectly sound. Sony made a big mistake in not charging for their service and has left them susceptible to attack.
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    Its like laughing at one credit card company with a security breach, and saying "See, they don't charge an annual fee like my credit card does. You get what you pay for!!!!!"

    This is a very poor analogy. Aside from keeping cardholders as customers that generate revenue, credit card companies have a vested self interest in curbing credit card fraud.

    What does that have to do with Sony's blunder?
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    I see the argument from both sides. I'm sure Sony is concerned about security. Two things MS has going for them, however, is that Xbox Live has been around longer than PSN... and their financial data is handled through their very robust Windows Live ID system. They've been at this longer, so naturally they're more secure, regardless of whether they charge for it.

    People keep inferring that PSN is paid for up front somehow through the actual sale of the console... which is ridiculous, considering how long it took Sony to actually make a profit off the hardware itself because of the expense of Blu-ray diodes. You can't believe that any of the cost of the PSN infrastructure was funded by PS3 sales when they posted a loss on every PS3 sold for its first few years of sales. I would imagine that PSN itself is paid for via the cut they take on sales through the Playstation store more than anything else... or just a general investment in the platform, financed by their licensing agreements.

    Regardless, the point remains... Microsoft has a 24/7 staff dedicated to security, and an internal system for dealing with system issues. Sony is having to call in an external security company to help rebuild PSN. And that's what a for-pay closed system gets you as opposed to a free open system - infrastructure and support. Ultimately, without any fanboyism, I think that's the lesson here. Either way, I'm sure Sony will eventually get this worked out and PSN users can get back to playing Mortal Kombat. ;)
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    Its a perfect analogy. You're so hung up on the exact source and name of the revenue stream but it doesn't make one iota of difference. Do you pay a separate fee to your bank or credit card company to have access to online banking? NO! Does that make it less secure? NO!

    Sony markets the PS3 to make money. Period. Whether the money comes from the actual sales of hardware, or software via PSN (like PS3 games, PSP games, add-ons, movies, etc etc) it doesn't matter. PSN is a huge value added to the PS3/PSP ecosystem, just the same as Xbox Live or whatever its called is to Microsoft's console. Whether the funds to pay for that service come embedded in hardware and software costs or a specially marked fee it doesn't matter! Its simply a difference in pricing schemes and models. Obviously the technical team at Sony responsible for PSN made a huge f-up. You're trying to say the blame lies on a bunch of suits in Finance who make pricing scheme decisions! How in the hell does that make any sense?

    Have you ever worked at a company as big as Sony? Its not even funny how far removed the guys making technical decisions on PSN are from finance and revenue sourcing.

    Sony screwed up on PSN security. That's obvious. MS obviously hasn't made such a mistake. Getting a boner about it and trying to lay blame to suits at Sony who work in Finance and not in IT is just plain silly.
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    Demiurge wrote: »
    23 millions users on XBox Live (2010) paying $50 a month (yes, $49.99) = $1,150,000,000 per year in revenue.

    holy crap, is it really $50 a month??? :eek:
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited April 2011
    I think I got hit. It could be a coincidence I suppose, but unlikely. My card just got tagged with charges across the coubtry
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    holy crap, is it really $50 a month??? :eek:

    He meant per year, not per month.
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    holy crap, is it really $50 a month??? :eek:

    Wow, that's the last time I do math on the forum. :redface:
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    Its a perfect analogy. You're so hung up on the exact source and name of the revenue stream but it doesn't make one iota of difference. Do you pay a separate fee to your bank or credit card company to have access to online banking? NO! Does that make it less secure? NO!

    It really isn't, and I explained why, but I digress...
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    Sony markets the PS3 to make money. Period. Whether the money comes from the actual sales of hardware, or software via PSN (like PS3 games, PSP games, add-ons, movies, etc etc) it doesn't matter. PSN is a huge value added to the PS3/PSP ecosystem, just the same as Xbox Live or whatever its called is to Microsoft's console. Whether the funds to pay for that service come embedded in hardware and software costs or a specially marked fee it doesn't matter! Its simply a difference in pricing schemes and models. Obviously the technical team at Sony responsible for PSN made a huge f-up. You're trying to say the blame lies on a bunch of suits in Finance who make pricing scheme decisions! How in the hell does that make any sense?

    Sony's board can justify what they do however it wants to it's shareholders. A justification doesn't mean they've made a smart business choice. They've left a [email protected]#t ton of money on the table in hopes it would help console sales -- and it hasn't. They're neck and neck with Microsoft, who charge a yearly fee for online gaming access via their console.

    Using Microsoft's rates, and PSN's 70 million subscribers, the suits have left a potential $3,500,000,000 per year in revenue on the table (yes, I realize if they charged they wouldn't have 70 millions users) that certainly won't end up funding the technical team at Sony to give them the tools to build a stronger security system and give a more robust online experience for their customers.

    Whether or not Sony would pass any of the online fee revenue to their security team is something nobody has a definitive answer to. You keep claiming I'm making some wild assumption that Sony isn't going to make more stupid business decisions. I admit, they certainly could.

    Your contention is that the money is coming from somewhere. No kidding. Clearly what they have in place, whether it's the people, the funding, or both, isn't working. They've made a huge error.

    The number that's coming in from their collective sales is a finite number. Funds can only be allocated to so many different places before it runs out. If they had tapped into a $3.5 billion dollar yearly revenue stream available to them, they'd have more money to upgrade their security.

    Yes, again, whether they would or not is not known. What we do know is that Sony [email protected]#t the bed on their free service, whereas their main online gaming competitor that charges a yearly fee, Microsoft, has not. Could they? Sure.
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    Sony screwed up on PSN security. That's obvious. MS obviously hasn't made such a mistake. Getting a boner about it and trying to lay blame to suits at Sony who work in Finance and not in IT is just plain silly.

    Yes, how silly it is to blame idiots who made a boneheaded business decision (it failed) that left a potential $3.5 billion dollars a year in revenue on the table rather than the IT team that has to work with a budget given to it by the same dolts.

    Money couldn't possibly have helped Sony have a better staffed, more prepared security team in place to prevent the attacks it's main competitor has been able to avoid in the nearly 6 years it's been on the market.

    For your edification, I blame Sony's IT team, too.
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited April 2011
    Here's a CRAZY thought...

    Maybe Microsoft is 'better' at protecting its users and security in general because, that's kinda what they do. They build operating systems and have entire departments devoted to security. It's not because you pay for it, it's because they already had that infrastructure in place, LONG before xbox live ever came around.

    I'm with PhantomOG on this one...
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    There are plenty of examples of competing companies with different pricing schemes exactly similar to this. For example, let's compare Rhapsody Music service with Itunes. Rhapsody is subscription based. Itunes has no subscription fee. Does that automatically mean that the Rhapsody server infrastructure is better than Itunes? Hell no.

    You're making assumption upon assumption upon assumption. If Sony charged a service fee, and if that didn't kill their hardware sales, and if Sony directed those funds towards server infrastructure, and if those funds weren't just wasted but actually used wisely.... do you seriously not see this?
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Posts: 11,873
    edited April 2011
    Here's a CRAZY thought...

    Maybe Microsoft is 'better' at protecting its users and security in general because, that's kinda what they do. They build operating systems and have entire departments devoted to security. It's not because you pay for it, it's because they already had that infrastructure in place, LONG before xbox live ever came around.

    I'm with PhantomOG on this one...



    Yes, because I'm sure Sony just hired a bunch of clueless TV salespeople to run it's IT and security departments rather than qualified individuals in that line of work.

    I mean, just how the hell does any service out there manage to provide a high QOS and keep their customer's personal and financial data secure without being a multi-billion dollar computer company?

    This issues at hand are multifaceted, but you'd love us to ignore the big white elephant in the room, which is the potential billion dollar revenue stream Sony's execs left completely untapped that could have funded a much more robust security system.
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    What's most telling to me is that they are having to bring in an external security team to help them rebuild PSN. And while I'm not as willing as Demiurge to pin that on them not charging for the service, I do think it's ridiculous that they didn't already have their own team in place for that very purpose. Maybe instead of wasting money on Playstation Home, they should have been putting that money toward an in-house division to protect their users. Not saying that's contingent on whether they charge for the service or not... Just saying that Sony should have had this covered before now.
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • PhantomOGPhantomOG Posts: 2,422
    edited April 2011
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Yes, because I'm sure Sony just hired a bunch of clueless TV salespeople to run it's IT and security departments rather than qualified individuals in that line of work.

    So I'm to believe as long as anyone out there charges a $50 a year service fee for their servers, they can expect the same level of security as a native company own Microsoft server? That's really all of you think MS?
    Demiurge wrote: »
    I mean, just how the hell does any service out there manage to provide a high QOS and keep their customer's personal and financial data secure without being a multi-billion dollar computer company?
    It seems like every month we hear about another large security breach somewhere. Do you not see these stories? I'm not saying its excusable. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that all a company has to do is charge a "special" fee and hire enough IT guys and magically everything is 100% secure.
    Demiurge wrote: »
    This issues at hand are multifaceted, but you'd love us to ignore the big white elephant in the room, which is the potential billion dollar revenue stream Sony's execs left completely untapped that could have funded a much more robust security system.

    EXACTLY! The issue at hand is extremely multifaceted, but you'd have us ignore that and say "If Sony charged a fee like MS, this never would have happened."
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    Demiurge wrote: »
    This issues at hand are multifaceted, but you'd love us to ignore the big white elephant in the room, which is the potential billion dollar revenue stream Sony's execs left completely untapped that could have funded a much more robust security system.

    In fairness, Sony was playing a long game in the console war. They knew they'd lose money by putting Blu-ray in the system from the get-go... but they were counting on the 10-year lifespan they had with PS2 to mitigate that, and the success of Blu-ray to help push system sales over their competitors. Likewise, PSN was a direct reaction to Xbox Live, and making it free was part of their long game to push system sales (and to an extent, both worked... lots of people bought PS3s because the online was free and it was a Blu-ray player). But as part of that long game, they ate the hardware cost and were completely unprofitable for 2 years... to the point that shareholders came very close to cutting their losses on PSN. They were hoping to dominate the market the way they did with the PS2... and unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. This gen, they have the 3rd place system... and it's all because of their business strategy.

    Contrast that with Nintendo, who put out hardware barely better than their last-gen offering, but at a reasonable price point that made it profitable from day one. Then you have Microsoft, who found a happy medium between the two and ended up in a pretty nice position.
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited April 2011
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Yes, because I'm sure Sony just hired a bunch of clueless TV salespeople to run it's IT and security departments rather than qualified individuals in that line of work.

    I mean, just how the hell does any service out there manage to provide a high QOS and keep their customer's personal and financial data secure without being a multi-billion dollar computer company?

    This issues at hand are multifaceted, but you'd love us to ignore the big white elephant in the room, which is the potential billion dollar revenue stream Sony's execs left completely untapped that could have funded a much more robust security system.
    I never said that. I said Microsoft was BETTER because that's what they do.

    Wanna know why the PS3 is BETTER as a home theater component than the 360, it's because that's what Sony does.

    Where are you getting that Sony left billions of dollars in untapped revenue??? According to you the PSN system is inferior to the xbox, you've said that over and over and over. So let's go with that, if the Sony system is inferior, then why would anyone pay for it? Your own logic doesn't hold up against itself.

    The point you're trying to make is that PS3 users somehow 'deserve' what they got because they chose to go with a service taht's 'free' as you call it. My point is that this is completely absurd, and I'm shocked that you 'don't get it'.
  • kuntasenseikuntasensei Posts: 3,270
    edited April 2011
    PhantomOG wrote: »
    It seems like every month we hear about another large security breach somewhere. Do you not see these stories? I'm not saying its excusable. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that all a company has to do is charge a "special" fee and hire enough IT guys and magically everything is 100% secure.

    No... but having that IT staff could very well mean that you don't wait A FULL WEEK to tell your customers about a breach in security that may have resulted in their personal info getting leaked into the wild... or you having to call in an external security company to fix weaknesses in your system that your IT staff could have been dealing with all along.
    Equipment list:
    Onkyo TX-NR3010 9.2 AVR
    Emotiva XPA-3 amp
    Polk RTi70 mains, CSi40 center, RTi38 surrounds, RTi28 rears and heights
    SVS 20-39CS+ subwoofer powered by Crown XLS1500
    Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player
    DarbeeVision DVP5000 video processor
    Epson 8500UB 1080p projector
    Elite Screens Sable 120" CineWhite screen
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited April 2011
    What's most telling to me is that they are having to bring in an external security team to help them rebuild PSN. And while I'm not as willing as Demiurge to pin that on them not charging for the service, I do think it's ridiculous that they didn't already have their own team in place for that very purpose. Maybe instead of wasting money on Playstation Home, they should have been putting that money toward an in-house division to protect their users. Not saying that's contingent on whether they charge for the service or not... Just saying that Sony should have had this covered before now.
    I agree completely.

    If Sony is the kind of company to not invest anything into security before now, how can you possibly conclude that it would have been any different had they charged for service???
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!