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

ysss

Face wrote: »

Just a rephrase, that's all.


And the best news of all: http://www.redmondpie.com/database-containing-2.2-million-psn-credit-cards-up-for-sale/

The stolen credit card information are supposedly up for sale to the highest bidder. It's even rumored that the hackers are trying to sell the data back to Sony before they open the bid to everyone else.

kuntasensei

Kaz Hirai did a press conference addressing the issues. FYI for all you PSN users:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/01/psn-outage-plus-qriocity-free/

Toxis

Much like the movie Catch Me If You Can, I say hire Geohot as your chief security officer. If he single handedly cracked the iPhone and PS3, he is smarter than the average bear...

kuntasensei

The thing that blows my mind is that in that press conference, a Sony exec said this was caused by a known vulnerability in the server they were using. Really? KNOWN? As in YOU KNEW ABOUT IT... AND DID NOTHING? Why would you tell people that? I don't care what kind of $25 baubles they toss at PSN users, it's going to take more than that to regain the good will of PS3 owners, especially if their credit card gets hit.

sterlingdax

While I agree with the majority that this thread was childish, and pretty much uncalled for. Lots of folks have their credit card information out in the wild now, which is a scary, scary thought. I imagine we'll all pay for this with increased interest rates and fees if they have to reverse all these charges. Fanboy that retards.

I have all consoles, have not used my PS3 in over a year, but my son used it for a while when his XBox broke....and I updated my CC info to buy him something to play in the meantime.

Then again, I suppose with the overtone of this thread I should point my finger with a neener neener neener and point to my i7 game rig? Nahhh, wouldn't be right. Ah wait, should I point out that it's an iMac, that'll getim going

ysss

If all this happened because Sony did not collect monthly subscription from PSN users, then:

1. Sony should rectify this immediately. The higher the fee, the better and more secure the service would be, in relation to XBL.

2. Failing #1, this same mistake will happen again in the future.

(right, demi?)

krauley

Disney, Soe, Monoprice, Square exix and Sony. All companies that I have been involved with that have had server attacks/hacking with the result of information being taken. Putting your info out there is a risk no matter what. And eventually someone is going to find a way to bypass any security in place because as sure as there are people working on updating and finding ways to make servers more secure there are just as many people finding ways to get past the security blocks.

My advise to any who use credit cards to shop online would be to go the gift card/reloadable credit card route.

kuntasensei

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/02/sony-hit-with-second-attack-loses-12-700-credit-card-nu/
Wow... and the hits keep coming!

ysss

kuntasensei wrote: »

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/02/sony-hit-with-second-attack-loses-12-700-credit-card-nu/
Wow... and the hits keep coming!

I'm sorry, but that is not possible.

Why? Because SOE is Sony's arm that deals with MMORPG and other online games that gets their main revenue from monthly subscription fees; which are (of course) automatically reinvested to infrastructure upkeep, expansion and superior security systems.

digitalvideo

Hackers Breach Second SONY Service:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299491191920416.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

mutelight

ysss wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is not possible.

Why? Because SOE is Sony's arm that deals with MMORPG and other online games that gets their main revenue from monthly subscription fees; which are (of course) automatically reinvested to infrastructure upkeep, expansion and superior security systems.

Totally not possible because as the thread says, "you get what you pay for".

/sarcasm

digitalvideo

Sony says 25 million more accounts hacked:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Sony-says-25-million-more-apf-40119063.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=


Sony's Howard Stringer under fire as 25 million more accounts:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sony-says-25-million-more-users-risk-second-022300531.html

Demiurge

ysss wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is not possible.

Why? Because SOE is Sony's arm that deals with MMORPG and other online games that gets their main revenue from monthly subscription fees; which are (of course) automatically reinvested to infrastructure upkeep, expansion and superior security systems.

Your sarcasm would be good if it matched the rhetoric you're attempting to mock. You, unfortunately, have failed. Sony has made dumb business decisions and could very well make them even if they charged for PSN.

A simple fact remains that Sony's PSN has been plagued with problems since day one, and the problems have never been addressed. Sony has been hemorrhaging cash on the PS3 since release as well.

You claim that a missing revenue stream of potentially $3.5 billion dollars based on the yearly rate of their chief competitor, who hasn't had any of these security problems and was on the market a year longer, and number of users is of no direct relevance to this problem.

I say you're completely wrong, and for reasons that acknowledge human nature and how business works.

My argument is and has been that when you're not making any money for a service you provide, the quality of the service suffers.

You're seemingly surprised your free service ended up dicking you in the butt in the long run and spreading your personal and financial info the world over? I'm a dick for pointing that out.

Here, I'll be more bombastic so you can qualify your **** comments about my starting this thread: If you don't get that, you're an idiot.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Eh, nevermind.

Guys, just let Demi have his thread and let it die in obscurity so he'll shut up about it all. At this point he's got too much invested in the argument, so even if you could 'prove' he was wrong he'd never admit it anyway, so there's really no point in arguing with him any longer...

Face

Demiurge wrote: »

I say you're completely wrong, and for reasons that acknowledge human nature and how greed works.

....

Demiurge

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Eh, nevermind.

Guys, just let Demi have his thread and let it die in obscurity so he'll shut up about it all. At this point he's got too much invested in the argument, so even if you could 'prove' he was wrong he'd never admit it anyway, so there's really no point in arguing with him any longer...

Fantastic argument, I'm convinced.

digitalvideo

Unless Sony purposely allowed hackers to hack their system then it's not Sony's fault, even our Pentagon has probably been hacked by some 16 year old Chinese kids, plus look at Wikileaks. If I break into your house is it your fault your security system didn't stop me in time? Stop blaming Sony, blame the hackers.

Fongolio

digitalvideo wrote: »

Unless Sony purposely allowed hackers to hack their system then it's not Sony's fault, even our Pentagon has probably been hacked by some 16 year old Chinese kids, plus look at Wikileaks. If I break into your house is it your fault your security system didn't stop me in time? Stop blaming Sony, blame the hackers.

Best argument on this thread yet. Thank you dv.

Demiurge

digitalvideo wrote: »

Unless Sony purposely allowed hackers to hack their system then it's not Sony's fault, even our Pentagon has probably been hacked by some 16 year old Chinese kids, plus look at Wikileaks. If I break into your house is it your fault your security system didn't stop me in time? Stop blaming Sony, blame the hackers.

Really? That argument defies logic.

Of course the hackers are chiefly responsible for their misdeed.

Sony is also entrusted with keeping the personal information and financial data of it's customers secured. This didn't happen. How is Sony not partially culpable?

AsSiMiLaTeD

Demiurge wrote: »

Fantastic argument, I'm convinced.

It wasn't an argument, thought you were smart enough to realize that so I didn't preface it with a "this is not an argument" comment, sorry for the confusion. Phantom has done the best job at defeating your 'logic' but you just saying the same thing over and over and using unreasonable numbers like 3.5 BILLION dollars, knowing full well those are bogus numbers...so there's really no point in trying to argue with someone that's going to be that unreasonable.

Demiurge

Face wrote: »

....

Businesses exist to make money, not offer free services in exchange for nothing. I'm sure Sony thought they would get something out of this arrangement, but all they got was a gigantic sink hole of costs and a bunch of pissed off mostly non-paying customers and some paying customers. This is a perfect example of why you charge for things. There's incentive.

If a company is not providing a good product or service, greed will get them nowhere -- they won't have customers.

Free is easy, though. In general, who doesn't like free? Sounds great!

There's a reason I will always be skeptical of it unless there's an obvious hook. Sony funneling money around from it's various business interests to fund the vast majority of their newly reported 77 million users' ability to game online for free is apparently not an adequate incentive to keep their security infrastructure up to snuff.

If anyone thinks they've just been altruistic and magnanimous, they're kidding themselves.

Would charging for this service have prevented this? No way of knowing. Folks were predicting this with PSN long before it happened. QOS was a chief reason people stated they didn't mind paying a yearly fee for online gaming.

It's not nice to say "told you so?"

Too bad.

Toxis

Let fanboys be fanboys. Enjoy your Xbox and playing online as I finish working on my basement. You know, stuff people put off to play video games. Again I say, who cares unless your card was hit. There's a hundred things you should be doing first but never did because of the endorphins from playing video games. Moving on...

And now back to Demi's half minded commentary.

Demiurge

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

It wasn't an argument, thought you were smart enough to realize that so I didn't preface it with a "this is not an argument" comment, sorry for the confusion. Phantom has done the best job at defeating your 'logic' but you just saying the same thing over and over and using unreasonable numbers like 3.5 BILLION dollars, knowing full well those are bogus numbers...so there's really no point in trying to argue with someone that's going to be that unreasonable.

...and you're both lying by building up straw man arguments and straight up putting words in my mouth.

How many times did I preface the fact that the $3.5 billion a year revenue stream I came up with was based on 70 million users at XBox Lives $50 year rate while also acknowledging that if Sony charged there's no way they'd have 70 million users a year?

Even using XBox Live's rates and paying membership, that's over $1.5 billion dollars a year in revenue. I guess that lessens the point I'm making?

You want to whine about the specifics, which I clearly stated weren't even remotely precise, without acknowledging the elephant in the room -- that's a lot of money Sony isn't bringing in for it's crappy service they're currently offering for free and has been plagued with problems.

If you could have a discussion without lying right out of the gate maybe we wouldn't have the comments that you've made about how dumb and worthless it is arguing with me. I guess I would agree that since you have no salient points to make, which is why you resort to lying, it probably was fruitless for you to have ever rolled your sausage fingers over your keyboard to reply to this thread.

Demiurge

Toxis wrote: »

Let fanboys be fanboys. Enjoy your Xbox and playing online as I finish working on my basement. You know, stuff people put off to play video games. Again I say, who cares unless your card was hit. There's a hundred things you should be doing first but never did because of the endorphins from playing video games. Moving on...

And now back to Demi's half minded commentary.

Your hand is glad you're back, too.

digitalvideo

Demiurge wrote: »

Really? That argument defies logic.

Of course the hackers are chiefly responsible for their misdeed.

Sony is also entrusted with keeping the personal information and financial data of it's customers secured. This didn't happen. How is Sony not partially culpable?

If you spend millions of dollars on the world's best home security system, have private Black Water security patrolling your house and someone was able to get by all that and break into your house, steal your belongings hurt your loved ones are you to blame? Now if you say: "YES" then if they capture the intruder and you're in a Court of Law and he's on the stand you should get out of your seat go up there with the suspect and say to the Judge and Jury that you should be sentenced to jail too according to your logic. Lead by example.

AsSiMiLaTeD

How am I lying? If you KNOW the number is not accurate, then quit spewing it out of your mouth, simple as that.

Just to catch us up then, it's not anywhere near 3.5 billion then, ok good...

That point aside, your general attitude in this thread is completely uncalled for and you know it. Phantom took you to task on your arguments, I'm not going to sit here and say the same things he said. I made my points early on as well, he just did a better job of making those points later on and had some things of his own to add.

You've said yourself that you created this thread as a 'neener neener neener' to the PS3 guys, because a handful of people hurt your feelings and made fun of you for paying for XBOX service. So instead of addressing them directly, you've decided to insult the whole PS3 crowd.

That's true character right there, I bet you're a great person.

But you've resorted to calling me a liar, (and sausage fingers???), so I guess I'm not too shocked

digitalvideo

No one mentions Google, Google is able to go above Governments around the world to provide access to many things. When it comes to privacy rights and legal rights state by state, country by country governments around the world can't even block Google.

It's the whole idea of living in a transparent world and the more transparency the less privacy.

digitalvideo

Demiurge wrote: »

Really? That argument defies logic.

Of course the hackers are chiefly responsible for their misdeed.

Sony is also entrusted with keeping the personal information and financial data of it's customers secured. This didn't happen. How is Sony not partially culpable?

If you had any intregry then "YOU" would cancel everything that has to do with this, and "YOU" will never buy a Sony product every again, a 100% boycott which is your right, but if you do buy Sony again then you're the hypocrite with no integrity, keep giving them your money. Understand that logic.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Just to make sure I'm clear about what I'm arguing with you about Demi, its your original statement in your original post:

I can't feel sorry for PS3 owners who game online and are getting what they paid for. What gripe do they have when they haven't invested anything in a service that everyone else charges for?

In summary, I have 2 main issues with your statement:

1 - It's not free, its just billed differently. It's rolled into the cost of the console. Going back to my car analogy, the 'free' maintenance plan on a car isn't free, they just roll it into the cost of the car, this is no different. I'm truly shocked that you don't get this.
1a - Also, the fact that they have my credit card information means I've bought something from them, so it's not 'free' any longer.
2 - Regardless of whether or not something is free, I have every right as a customer to expect a reasonable amount of security to be taken by a company that has my information in efforts to protect my privacy. You say that I don't (its quoted above), but I do have every right to be pissed when something like this happens, regardless if I'm paying for my service.

I'd like to offer up another analogy, relating to point 1a above. Let's say I go into a Best Buy to browse around. I don't have to 'pay' to shop there, I just have to pay for what I'm buying, same as I don't have to pay for PSN, but do have to pay for extras that I download. Would I have the right to be pissed if Best Buy didn't secure their computer system and someone stole my account information?

Using your logic, the answer is no, because I'm not paying for the ability to shop there. Using your logic, the only store that I shop at that I can have a reasonable right to expect security of my information is Costco because I do pay a yearly fee to shop there.

digitalvideo

I gurantee over 95% of everyone on here will stay with Sony.