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

kuntasensei

Without taking sides here, it's not like Sony doesn't make money off PSN, regardless of whether there's a charge for the service itself. They take a chunk of every sale made on PSN, whether it be DLC for games, movies, etc.

So it's not like money is necessarily the issue here... Sony just screwed up and didn't secure their damn network. End of story. And now their customers are suffering for it. We can throw out theories about the hows and whys all day long, but they're really not relevant to the fact that Sony's customers have been screwed over by this.

digitalvideo

kuntasensei wrote: »

So it's not like money is necessarily the issue here... Sony just screwed up and didn't secure their damn network. End of story. And now their customers are suffering for it. We can throw out theories about the hows and whys all day long, but they're really not relevant to the fact that Sony's customers have been screwed over by this.

Can you prove Sony didn't have any security mechanisms in place to fight against hackers? I'm talking real proof and not internet gossip and rumors.

Face

Demiurge wrote: »

Would charging for this service have prevented this? No way of knowing.

IMO, this is what makes your argument invalid. Being familiar with the forces and motive behind the attack, people could have payed $5,000 a month and this still would have happened, but maybe to a lesser degree.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

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...

Sony has made lots of money through PSN and the service is NOT free. As long as you continue to pretend like these two facts do not exist there is no sense in any further discussion. Its really pretty sad that you feel a need to make up **** to make yourself feel better about what some stupid fanboys have said to you in the past. I genuinely thought you were bigger than that.

No one is arguing that Sony didn't royally screw the pooch. No one is disagreeing with your statement that Xbox Live is better than PSN. Honestly, those two things right there are justification enough for you to enjoy whatever sense of righteousness you feel you need over pathetic PS3 fanboys. But for some reason its not enough for you and its really sad to see you stoop to this level.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

Would charging for this service have prevented this? No way of knowing.

so you have backed down from your original statement. Good to see you do have some sense of logic left.

digitalvideo

I smell junk lawsuits just like the Toyota nonsense where Congress wanted to stick their fingers in something else and I still see more Toyota's on the street than any other car, so Toyota and Sony will prevail because people like you and everyone else on here will continue to give them your money.

I don't wish harm on anyone at all.

Demiurge

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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

It's pretty simple dumb, dumb. The point is that they've left a lot of money on the table, well over $1 billion dollars and less that $3.5 billion.

What number would make you feel better so that the point could sink in to your thick skull? I've stated where the number is derived from about 8 times now, and acknowledged that they're likely to receive a lot less.

The point being that it's a lot of revenue on the table that they don't have available to pay for a higher QOS for their customers.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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

Wrong.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

That point aside, your general attitude in this thread is completely uncalled for and you know it.

Your attitude has been what? You've been a dick from the first post and now you're upset I'm calling you a dick saying my attitude sucks?

I don't care, bud. From the first post I made my intent known. If you didn't like it you should have steered clear. I'm not going to back off because you don't like what I'm saying.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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.

Took me to task? Good stuff. I responded to him several times, repeating myself over and over, and through his making things up much like you have, there's been nothing left to say up until now.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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.

Why is it so hard for you to be accurate?

Demiurge wrote:

Yes, this is an "I told you so," thread, since all we ever hear about is that PSN is free and that's supposedly a good thing. Having gamed on PSN, it sucks.

I stand by that, and my feelings aren't hurt. Aside from people I know being screwed as a result, I do find the whole affair a bit amusing given the number of times I've been told how great it is to have a free service.

Sue me.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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

I'd rather have people hate me for who I am than like me for who I am not.

You can question my character all you'd like, but my reputation among those I've dealt with here and helped out speaks for itself.

There's nothing that's been said in this thread that I wouldn't say to any one of your faces. I suspect much of the rhetoric on your end would be different though, anyways. You'd perhaps pick up all of the nuances you've missed along the way.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

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

That's because you've lied, and you continued it from the onset of your last post.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote: »

Sony has made lots of money through PSN and the service is NOT free. As long as you continue to pretend like these two facts do not exist there is no sense in any further discussion. Its really pretty sad that you feel a need to make up **** to make yourself feel better about what some stupid fanboys have said to you in the past. I genuinely thought you were bigger than that.

No one is arguing that Sony didn't royally screw the pooch. No one is disagreeing with your statement that Xbox Live is better than PSN. Honestly, those two things right there are justification enough for you to enjoy whatever sense of righteousness you feel you need over pathetic PS3 fanboys. But for some reason its not enough for you and its really sad to see you stoop to this level.

First and foremost, I never once stated that Sony wasn't bringing in any revenue from PSN. You're the one now saying they've made money. Revenue and profit are two different things. They've made a profit?

By all means, prove it.

Secondly, yes, PSN as a service is free. If you buy Call of Duty Black Ops, you can put your disc in your PS3 and connect to players across the world without paying any more than the cost of the game so long as you have an internet connection. Whether Sony has costs built into the game or not is irrelevant, you're paying for the game when you buy it, not PSN. Same goes for any other products you may buy where Sony has the costs built in. Their customers aren't buying PSN when they buy them, they're buying the products.

Do you grasp this?

Thirdly, just like XBox Live does despite it's yearly access fee, PSN may charge for content. This has never been denied by me or anyone else.

Lastly, the fact remains that Sony has left a large source of revenue on the table. This can't be denied by you or anyone else. This revenue is revenue that could be going to bolstering a clearly inferior security system and offering it's customers a better QOS overall.

You can keep saying that they could still be attacked and penetrated, but it's never been denied.

You can keep saying that they might not put any of that revenue towards upgrading the PSN, but it's never been denied.

The saying goes, you get what you pay for, and that's the title of this thread. You want to take it literally? Fine.

The axiom exists for a reason. You can act like it's insane to believe that Sony wouldn't have these problems had they only done a prudent thing and charged for their service with an upfront fee.

I think you're wrong. Disagree? Fine. Move on.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote: »

so you have backed down from your original statement. Good to see you do have some sense of logic left.

Not at all, but perhaps you're finally acknowledging your assumptions were wrong from the get go.

Maybe not.

megasat16

I never trust any Games company with my credit card info.

I buy Games from the local store or Walmart.

kuntasensei

digitalvideo wrote: »

Can you prove Sony didn't have any security mechanisms in place to fight against hackers? I'm talking real proof and not internet gossip and rumors.

I didn't say that they "didn't have any security mechanisms in place to fight against hackers". I said they didn't secure their network. I can prove that... because it was hacked, therefore NOT SECURE. Oh, and they also outright said that the issue was caused by a known vulnerability in the type of server they were using. KNOWN. As in they knew there was a problem and didn't act on it until it was too late. They've also had some of these hackers that they have vilified telling them that there were security issues for some time now... but when did they call in a security firm? AFTER it was too late, and a full 48 hours of unsecured uptime after the hacks began (which is an eternity). I don't care whether they're a pay service or not, they are culpable.

I'm sure Sony had some measures in place. But let's face it - Sony has been half-assing their network since the first connected games on PS2. Sure, it's more robust than Nintendo's... but PSN doesn't even come close to Xbox Live or (so we're not still wallowing in console fanboyism) something like Steam on the PC. But again, while I get where Demiurge is coming from... I think this all resulted from hubris more than anything financial.

digitalvideo

kuntasensei point well taken. I have to add one more thing...

It's the hackers fault, if they never would have hacked then none of this would have happened. To blame Sony is like blaming a woman for wearing a revealing dress for getting raped.

I hope no one got hurt and I hope no one lost any money from these hackers selfish greedy acts.

Let's hope Sony is sincere, acts aggressively to fight this, bring the hackers to justice and create a 100% fool proof force field that is hack proof.

I apologize if my views and comments came across as crass. Everyone stay safe.

slk55amg

I am going to buy a 46 inch hx929 later this year, my plans have not changed.

kuntasensei

digitalvideo wrote: »

It's the hackers fault, if they never would have hacked then none of this would have happened. To blame Sony is like blaming a woman for wearing a revealing dress for getting raped.

I get that analogy... but at the same time, say you had people come to your house every day for a week and tell you, "Dude, your locks are broken. I could totally get in your house and rob you." Then, your house gets broken into because you didn't replace the locks. Sure, it's still the fault of the criminal who robbed you... but you're culpable because you had knowledge that could have prevented it, and your silly **** didn't change the damn locks out. In Sony's case, they didn't change the locks just because they figured no one would break in, even though they admit they knew the locks were broken.

And I know everyone decries hackers... but honestly, they're a necessary evil. After all, where do you think those kids end up getting jobs later in life?

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

First and foremost, I never once stated that Sony wasn't bringing in any revenue from PSN.

Actually, you did say just that. See below:

Demiurge wrote: »

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.

Demiurge wrote: »

You're the one now saying they've made money. Revenue and profit are two different things. They've made a profit?

By all means, prove it.

I have nothing to prove here. You are the one making wild claims here that event A was directly responsible for event B, namely that Sony's chosen pricing model directly caused the dilemma they are in now. YOU show us proof that Sony skimped out on network infrastructure and security ONLY because they did not have a specific access fee as opposed to their chosen payment method which comes from hardware and software.

Demiurge wrote: »

Secondly, yes, PSN as a service is free.
.
.
.
Do you grasp this?

Still can't let that little white lie go can you? Answer me this: A person without any consoles wants to play the latest Call of Duy game online for one year on either PSN or Xbox Live. Can he do either for *free*? No.

Let's look at Amazon.com --
For PS3, you need $299.99 for the console, $39.99 for the game. Total Cost for this one year: ~$340
For Xbox Live you need $199.99 for the console, $39.99 for the game, and $43.99 for Live Gold One Year. Total Cost for one year: ~$284

So how exactly is PSN free versus Xbox in the above scenario?? It looks like Xbox Live is about $56 dollars cheaper for that one year of gaming.


Its correlation versus causation. You might sleep better at night thinking what happened to PSN was *caused* by their lack of an access fee, but the hard fact remains its simply a *correlation* and nothing more.

AsSiMiLaTeD

You're way off base Demi...

That's because you've lied, and you continued it from the onset of your last post.

Calling someone a liar is quite the accusation, you're going to have to actually prove that. I'm looking, can't find it, show me where I LIED. Did I misinterpret or take something out of context? It appears that I did. That's hardly LYING, it's no more LYING than you continuing to use the 3.5 BILLION figure, apparently knowing that it's not an accurate number.

And then when I said "Just to catch us up then, it's not anywhere near 3.5 billion then, ok good.." you said "Wrong", but then somewhere else you said 1.5 billion or something along those lines, which is, in fact, NOWHERE NEAR 3.5 billion, according to any conventional form of arithmetic it's less than half. Well hell Demi, which is it, 1.5 or NEAR 3.5?????

The point isn't the dollar amount that you're using, its that you're embellishing the truth to try and prove a point.

Clearly this isn't a very good argument to use against you because you're right, in the context of this debate 1.5 billion vs 3.5 billion doesn't really matter. So from that perspective I regret bringing it up and was in all honesty just picking at the details. If that were the only argument being made then you'd have a valid concern, however it's only one of many points that were brought up...some of which you still have not responded to.

I'm not a liar though, don't appreciate being called that, that's a pretty low blow...

Your attitude has been what? You've been a dick from the first post and now you're upset I'm calling you a dick saying my attitude sucks?

My first post was combative I will admit, but I only attacked your point of view, not YOU. YOU have resorted to personal attacks, two COMPLETELY different things and you know it.

Care to respond to my post #188? Phantom also brings up a good point in post #204, care to respond to that as well?

lanion

It has only been a week. The biggest downside is I wanted to play some of the PSN games that were supposed to come out on thursday. And I felt like playing some killzone 3 and some Heroes of Might and Magic... but... I played PC online games instead.

I also took a bike ride. and life was not so bad.

What is interesting is that even though the service is free it still obviously has tremendous value to customers, or they wouldn't be so mad (possible fraud charges excluded).

If the service was canceled I would be annoyed about games I paid for but couldn't get again, but I understood those risks when I paid for any digital content, just as I did buying songs on Itunes. But the most this is should for anyone is mildly annoying. Even finding false charges on you credit card. That is annoying, nothing more.

mutelight

This has absolutely zero to do with PSN being free. This is entirely due to Sony pissing off hacktivists and Sony exhibiting negligence.

If the unaffected (anti-Sony) people exuded the same amount of effort they have put in this thread trying to trash Sony towards work, they could have bought a couple PS3s by now and enjoyed them for their superior media, and superior visuals in their exclusives and their exclusives in general. There is nothing more sad then the people I see all over the internet harping on this issue when they aren't even remotely affected.

mutelight

Also, let's not forget SOE was hacked and it is completely subscription based, so the "free" aspect is debunked.

kuntasensei

The plot thickens...
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/05/psn-servers-were-unpatched-and-had-no-firewall-installed-secu/

And that's what I'm talking about, paid service be damned. Sony did very little to protect their users' data, despite being warned repeatedly. Absolutely ridiculous!

cnh

That makes complete sense, unfortunately. Because there was nothing that I could see on the PSN or in my log-in that would indicate otherwise. The system, on 'reflection', does seem like it was waiting for someone to come through the 'back-door' so to speak!

cnh

digitalvideo

SONY CEO apologizes to gamers; shares fall 2 percent:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sony-ceo-apologizes-internet-breaches-032757155.html

digitalvideo

Attorney General Eric Holder confirms Sony data breach probe:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/attorney-general-holder-confirms-sony-data-breach-probe-074720471.html

Anonymoose

After doing some research into the whole thing, I have to wonder about whether or not their security was actually an issue. They were being DDOS'ed by Anonymous and from what it looks like, someone decided then to hack into PSN and steal the information. So when you have thousands of requests for access, it's hard to detect a single person actually going in. And as pointed out in the article I'm linking to, the person or people who actually stole the information could have simply put anyone's name in the text file. So if you're attacking while tons of people are attacking, it's gonna be hard to detect the breach and then it's a smart move to blame it on the huge group.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/anonymous-sony-is-incompetent-and-we-dont-steal-credit-cards.ars

audio_alan

Hahahahahahaha This thread is so ridiculous. It's like one brick wall (Demi) and a thousand people banging their heads on it. Eh, what the heck, I'll add some gas...

Logic FAIL! -- Just because Sony doesn't charge for the actual service doesn't mean they aren't reaping the benefits elsewhere:

movie rentals
downloadable demos, and then the person goes out and buys the full game (I've done that!)
add-on content
themes
etc.

Leaving more money in people's pocket at the door allows them to buy more inside. It's like a bar that charges a $10 cover charge vs. one that is "free". If someone only has $30 to spend, they will only have $20 left after they pay the cover charge. However, if you let them in for "free", chances are they'll spend the entire $30 anyway. Will there be free-loaders? Absolutely! But they probably wouldn't have the same sized crowd with a cover either... Hint: That's where your 70 million x $50 argument fails. People are cheap. Most of them wouldn't subscribe. But, let them in for "free", and they can see/sample the goods. Eventually they will get thirsty and buy a drink. If not, they probably wouldn't have paid for the cover charge anyway!

Demi is probably just bitter because (take your pick):

One or more of his XBoxes has suffered the RRoD.
He can't find HD-DVDs for his expensive HD-DVD Xbox add-on.
His games are smaller on the XBox because they aren't on BD media.
He has to pay for his service. :biggrin:

Demiurge

audio_alan wrote: »

Logic FAIL! -- Just because Sony doesn't charge for the actual service doesn't mean they aren't reaping the benefits elsewhere:

movie rentals
downloadable demos, and then the person goes out and buys the full game (I've done that!)
add-on content
themes
etc.

These are all things their largest competitor also charges for on top of their fee for the service itself, which has been stated numerous times.

That's a business decision that Sony made. It's proven itself to be a rather stupid given the amount of a potential revenue they closed themselves off from, which is quite sizable, and has also been noted numerous times.

That's also money that wasn't going to bolster their security system and overall infrastructure. You can argue all day whether it would have or not, simple logic suggests it would have. When you're charging for a service, you have paying customers that you're entrusted to provide a good QOS to and protect. They failed. That's why you charge customers on things like this directly, not try to make it up on the back end.

Money at a company like Sony doesn't go into a giant pot where it's allocated to various divisions. While they can certainly bail their failing ventures out, they're all expected to run independently and sustain themselves in the same way.

If this thread proves anything, it's the completely lack of business acumen the average American possesses.

Whether I'm an executive at Sony or a shareholder, I'm appalled at what an absolutely stupid series of business decisions that they made.

audio_alan wrote: »

Leaving more money in people's pocket at the door allows them to buy more inside. It's like a bar that charges a $10 cover charge vs. one that is "free". If someone only has $30 to spend, they will only have $20 left after they pay the cover charge. However, if you let them in for "free", chances are they'll spend the entire $30 anyway. Will there be free-loaders? Absolutely! But they probably wouldn't have the same sized crowd with a cover either... Hint: That's where your 70 million x $50 argument fails. People are cheap. Most of them wouldn't subscribe. But, let them in for "free", and they can see/sample the goods. Eventually they will get thirsty and buy a drink. If not, they probably wouldn't have paid for the cover charge anyway!

It would be great if you'd follow along since you made the very point I have been making. You seem to suffer the same reading problems as some others here.

Never once did I say that PSN would ever be able to maintain 70 million paying accounts. In fact, I stated that several times they wouldn't.

The fact is that they've left a gigantic revenue stream on the table, one that is north of $1 Billion dollars.

That has no affect on what a **** service PSN has been and continues to be, or why a bunch of hackers have been able to tear down said **** service.

audio_alan wrote: »

Demi is probably just bitter because (take your pick):

One or more of his XBoxes has suffered the RRoD.
He can't find HD-DVDs for his expensive HD-DVD Xbox add-on.
His games are smaller on the XBox because they aren't on BD media.
He has to pay for his service. :biggrin:

I had my launch unit die, and bought two more.

The HD-DVD player is packed away since the format lost to Sony's far superior Blu-Ray. I could sell you the drive if you're interested. I've got like 5 movies for it, too. I'll cut you a great deal.

Man, how can I compete, not only are your games bigger, but you've got a giant ****.

That wouldn't make me bitter, young man, as my credit card and personal information isn't compromised (seems my PSN account information and credit card wasn't affected either!)

Toodles, peaches!

audio_alan

audio_alan wrote: »

Hahahahahahaha This thread is so ridiculous. It's like one brick wall (Demi) and a thousand people banging their heads on it. ...

^^^ Better make that 1001 people. :cool:

So I suppose the reason Microsoft Azure and Amazon's Cloud service (among other large providers) recently had unexpected outages was "because people got what they paid for"??? (scratch head) :rolleyes:

While you may think you have "business acumen" (and who knows, you might be a business genius), you probably understand very little about computer security, network infrastructure, etc. Even the best businesses in the world can and continue to have outages. Heck, I've even seen Google down. ..... Oh wait, Google is a "free" service, that must have been why....

AsSiMiLaTeD

I think a bunch of data was stolen from credit card companies recently as well. maybe they need to jack up their credit card fees so that they can pay for a better storage and security solution :-)

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

It's proven itself to be a rather stupid given the amount of a potential revenue they closed themselves off from, which is quite sizable, and has also been noted numerous times.

That's also money that wasn't going to bolster their security system and overall infrastructure.

You keep stating the above like its some kind of fact when it couldn't be further from the truth. You *think* what you said is true, but we have no way of knowing exactly what would have happened "if this" and "if that" happened. I would not have bought a PS3 had there been an access fee. That is a fact. Let me make up my own fact:

If Sony had charged for PSN access, they would have sold 42% less PS3's during the first 3 years which in turn would have caused Blu-Ray to lose the format war, eventually leading Sony to go completely out of business.

See, saying "If this had happened" and making s@#t up is fun! :rolleyes:

inspiredsports

audio_alan wrote: »

^^^ Better make that 1001 people. :cool:

So I suppose the reason Microsoft Azure and Amazon's Cloud service (among other large providers) recently had unexpected outages was "because people got what they paid for"??? (scratch head) :rolleyes:

While you may think you have "business acumen" (and who knows, you might be a business genius), you probably understand very little about computer security, network infrastructure, etc. Even the best businesses in the world can and continue to have outages. Heck, I've even seen Google down. ..... Oh wait, Google is a "free" service, that must have been why....

The problem is none of these companies can be forthcoming and honest as that would keep people from using their services. The volume of activity is already unfathomable, growing daily, and virtually impossible to fully protect.

Honest mistakes, software coding errors, hardware hiccups, hackers, dishonest employees and sites set up to intentionally capture data that will be misused (against you) in the future are now facts of life if you are connected to the Internet.