I'll just sell off my PS3 as well if a third attack is made. I'll concentrate on PC gaming and retro gaming. Can't hack my NES!

I agree. It seems like these Anonymous guys want this to be a recurring thing for the foreseeable future.

You've been conditioned to be a modern consumer.

To be clear ... making profit and having control are not the same thing. There's no evidence that having complete dominion over a product is what guarantees better profit margins. In fact, most evidence points towards the contrary.

There's more options than just having some closed system and provider. There's more complex business models that can be developed that benefit both the producer and consumer ... but most businesses don't want that, because they want control, then profit. They're willing to lose money in favor of control. And this is a very anti-consumer mentality, and it ends up not capitalizing to the fullest.

Game companies, or publishers rather, internally view video games as a service, not a product. A product is something you purchase and it's yours ... they want it to be seen as a service (even though it isn't) so they can, basically, nickel and dime you.

The bottom line is, all of these practices force the consumer to suffer, so I don't really see why you'd defend them at all. Even talking about piracy there's ways to use it as a business advantage, but they won't even consider it, even though it'd likely bring multiples larger profit with less effort and expenditure. So, really, the only answer that's left is control.

And frankly ... why in the fuck would you defend a company that is only doing things for the company and not the consumer!? This is not the purpose of a business. A business offers a service or product to benefit consumers, profit is for operational costs and payment and expansion to offer more product and services. If the company is not doing everything they can for their consumers ... why would you be okay with that!? That means they're raking consumers over the coals and using them as support. Not what I'd call a decent business. When did it become OK for business to ignore ethics?

I'd disagree with you over the first two points, but I'd just be talking in circles if I laid out my side again, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Video game companies have experimented with video games being a service, not a product, in the past. SEGA Channel comes to mind, but there were others. World of Warcraft and other MMOs are really more of a service. But I really don't see the industry swinging that way on a massive scale. I understand the argument, but I don't see the evidence for it being a bigger problem.

But once again, you're talking as if Sony is a Gestapo type machine of oppression that is unethical and anti-consumer. I just don't see it. In any other situation, you'd be 100% correct. The thing is, Kakeh basically summed up my thoughts with this, "you do not own the code inside the system and so you can not do what you want with that."

I didn't say they were gestapo. My entire point is, you're not going to have the same frame of reference to understand why someone would even want to make modifications of any kind, therefore you're probably not going to think they should be able to do it at all.

And, legally speaking, no one can stop you from modifying something you've bought from them, and companies have tried multiple times. It seems to stem from entitlement issues on the behalf of the company. If I want to re-write the PS3 firmware without using Sony's copyrighted code, I'm more than within my rights to do so.

Committing criminal action is entirely separate ... and lumping the two together, modification and criminal behavior ... is not necessarily a given ... even though it's basically been ingrained in people's minds, at this point, that it is. In any case, it's about innovation and engineering at a hobbyist level, and the meta-issue is that you have an external entity who is now enforcing what you can and can't do with things you own.

As for games as service: the evidence is their actions and what they've said. http://playstationlifestyle.net/2009/06 ... s-ea-boss/ for example. And they want to go in this direction because, they have more control over the product (you get situations like StarCraft 2, where you can't even make alterations in the single player game, because it affects an online score and they invalidate your copy. Be prepared for more of this.)

If you advance this to where it's going, and what has already begun, you're talking about less game for more money that has a perpetual cost. Oh, you want to have coop in your game? Well, that's a $15 add-on pack. You want the end of your game? Well, you're going to have to pay for installment-x,y,z. Oh you can play our game, but you have to subscribe to the multiplayer which is $15 a month to have access to single player ...

Not a lot of that has happened, but it is moving in that direction (And chances are newer gamers would jump right on board). Games are moving away from, We make game, you play game, and while I'm fine with new types of games doing new types of things ... I am NOT okay with old types of games, just being crammed into a new model because the publisher wants to bleed more money out of their consumers. The current model is already too bloated on the consumer end, they're just going in the wrong direction. In general, regarding software, most companies are just going in the wrong direction. The age of proprietary-software is slowly coming to an end, and they're grasping straws to get people not to move on. But it's going to happen, at some point in time they simply will not be able to compete with other business models, I'd just prefer if they didn't take the entire game industry with them.

The idea that ... you purchased something and you are unable to do what you wish with it, purely because there is a flakey mandatory agreement of stipulations is absurd and, in actual law, does not usually hold up. You have the right to modify the hardware in your PS3, you have the right to hack apart it's firmware, you just can't sell it or use it. You have the right, to write your own firmware, as long as it's not based off Sony's ... these are all within your legal rights and most of all there is nothing immoral about any of it.

The criminal action taken by whomever is assaulting Sony's online businesses is not condoned. That is criminal and malicious and immoral behavior ... I am in no way saying people have the right to do that. What I'm saying, is Sony does NOT have the right to tell you you can't utilize something you bought from them to the fullest extent you can. And if you can't separate that from criminal activity ... then you should really reevaluate how you're looking at it.

I have no problems with any company making profit ... but they can't do it at the expense of consumers ... they have to do it at their benefit.

Though all CFW is based off Sony's code lol. Anyway...

People keep talking how they are suing everyone. They sued Geohot. As you know they cant just sue somebody for just modding their system. GeoHot did something he should not have and that is a separate incident. Though Anonymous didn't think so. Otherwise you just get banned from online.

Usually if you are sued and you have a modded system, chances are you did something other than just mod.


I went ahead and looked up Consumer rights. These were adapted pretty much as law when Kennedy spoke about it. I can not find an actual law online but the basic rights are to protect us from abuse but say nothing about our right to mod a product. Some people say its our right because its not illegal.

I believe I own my stuff and should be able to do what I want with the physical product. However the specific code, visuals, idea, etc are not mine and I am not really entitled to say I own that, because I really don't own rights to that. Hacking the code won't get you in much trouble though and its not illegal to do so. I am not saying you can't. There are just somethings you can not do. And this is where people fall short on this argument when some do no understand what they really own and have rights to do. They wonder why GeoHot was being sued. Well he didn't just mod his system. Sony dropped it anyway as it was a waste of money and effort. They did have a case believe it or not and GeoHot could have easily lost/ (wouldn't be the first time)


As Crono said, illegal actions are separate from legal ones. And usually if someone is sued by a Company, chances are they did something other than just "mod" their stuff.


However all of this is not my problem. My problem is how ANYONE could think is justifiable to hack Sony's online servers. It's payback? Screw those hackers, seriously. There are better ways. In no way do they have any rights to do that for any reason. This isn't some lame DDoS attack that some count as protest, this is full out illegal and all the hackers should be punished. Especially when we do have a right to service as a customer. But we can not be provided a service when some waste of space douchebag hackers are preventing it from happening. Ok yes at first Sony had terrible security ok. But they hired a couple of the best security groups to help with it. They have been trying, but the constant threat of hacking is retarded. Protesting is one thing but when you interfere with others' rights, you are just wrong. Period

I believe people give up their rights when they violate others'. Obviously when you do that you do not think the right you are violating is important. The continuous attacks on our information violates our right to privacy and protection of our credit. So obviously hackers do not believe those are important. Ok so I think their information and credit should be posted and stolen to see how it feels to be violated. But thats just me

Well, Sony promised us a working network by the end of the week and it's Sunday. I think if Sony wants to pull a stable network out of their ass they better stand up.

Jesus.

So the 360 is about to get a spike in sales.

Bill Gate's is probably jerking off right now.

This is the first time I've ever heard of this... and this article is 1.) two years old and 2.) the ruminations of John Pleasants... a guy who now heads Playdom, a social game service which Pleasants was invested in. And shortly after that article, Pleasants would leave EA and head Playdom fully. It seems to me he was just talking up the business he was about to invest all his worth into. By the way, his investment paid off when Disney bought Playdom for over 700 million dollars last year. Playdom is one of the main game services on Facebook. That seems to be the extent of games becoming more of a service.

The thing is, I don't see this being a problem either because it simply isn't going to happen on a large scale any time soon. Will it happen in the future? Anything is possible I suppose. The movie rental industry is now a service industry and it's convenient and reasonably priced. But like I said, its been experimented with before with things like SEGA Channel and XBAND. I can see both the pros and the cons with it becoming a more service oriented industry but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I've been fighting the urge to pull out the 360 and it's huge brick power supply. I might be playing it before bed tonight, but I only have Ultimate Alliance. Bleh.

I'm sorry that I can't legitimately contribute to this thread because TL;DR, and I'm feeling rather shitty at the moment.

Also, I'm not attacking you Olly. It's just that I saw you do it after everyone else, and it;s just bugging me.

Bill gates isn't with Microsoft anymore. I would think the gaming community would know this. I know I'm being so anal right now that you can smell my lunch, but it's just been bugging me a lot.

Excuse my interruption.

I actually couldn't find the article I had in mind, it was far more recent and more nonchalant about the proclamation.
If you pay attention to how publishers represent themselves in the media, it gives the appearance of moving over to a pay-to-play model more like a service than a product system ... and the point I was making is ... they're moving over without changing what you're buying, just making it so you pay more.

Netflix and Blockbuster online are the only "service" movie rental's available, and that's only online. RedBox and blockbuster stores are not.

I'm not saying I'd be opposed to a SYSTEM that promotes on-demand play and you pay a low subscription price for access to many games (say something like the subscription model for OnLive) that has plenty of merits, but that is not what's being discussed.

All it takes is one breakout success that uses the idea, and that's it, it becomes norm. for the industry nearly overnight. It can change in the blink of an eye. (Mostly, again, having to do with the make as much money as possible business plan over the create a sustainable business for longevity business plan)

No thoughts on my clarifications on the other issues then? That's disappointing.

fully restored psn will not be seen till the end of the month.
hopefully a few servers here and there will allow access before then so i can play my damn games i bought off the store

I think the network is finished but I think they just want the hackers to be arrested beforehand.

I reserved Brink a month or so ago. Is the game even meant to be played offline?

You know I wouldn't be so pissed about this whole thing if Netflix wasn't spotty as hell. It was working kinda but now it's really hit and miss. I wonder if Netflix is going to do a compensation type thing.