Squid Division

Sony Shitshow

Recommended Posts

I'm mostly worried that I've probably used the same password elsewhere and couldn't really be bothered to change it everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get the point you are making. so, it is ok for product manufacturer to apply arbitrary limits on the product you bought after you bought it? It's ok for the manufacturer to remove features of a product you bought after you bought it?

I believe in the right to tinker.

No, I wouldn't pay $1000 for a PS3. It's simply not worth that much money. But when I buy a product I do expect that I can do anything with that product I want to. Sure. I'd lose things like warranty when I break the seal.

It's for damn sure ok for the manufacturer to set limits on the device if you want to use their online infrastructure. It's not ok for you to run software to cheat achievements(something even microsoft cracks down on) and It's DEFINITELY not ok for you to have jailbroken software on the PSN, where my personal game experience can be affected by cheaters and griefers, all for the sake of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get the point you are making. so, it is ok for product manufacturer to apply arbitrary limits on the product you bought after you bought it? It's ok for the manufacturer to remove features of a product you bought after you bought it?

I believe in the right to tinker.

No, I wouldn't pay $1000 for a PS3. It's simply not worth that much money. But when I buy a product I do expect that I can do anything with that product I want to. Sure. I'd lose things like warranty when I break the seal.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I guess I should explain.

The reason why Sony & Microsoft can afford to sell their very technically sophisticated hardware* for such a cheap price is because the whole thing is subsidized. Basically, they make a loss on the hardware, but for every software title sold they make $10 regardless of whether they published the game or not.

(* at the time!)

By circumventing Sony's DRM, customers no longer have to buy games for their system, and Sony is left selling a powerful system at a loss, with no way to make that money back.

I'm not saying you're a pirate, but in general, circumventing DRM leads to piracy, and the customers who strictly use it for homebrew purposes are in the minority.

If you believe in the "right to tinker", then you have to pay for an un-subsidized console. It would cost a little more than a top-of-the-line PC, because you'd have to factor R&D and marketing into Sony's expenses. $1000 is not an unreasonable sum.

I believe in the right to tinker too... I've been writing code since I was a kid. But that's why I have a PC and a Mac to write desktop games/software on, and an iPad & iPhone to write mobile games/software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's for damn sure ok for the manufacturer to set limits on the device if you want to use their online infrastructure. It's not ok for you to run software to cheat achievements(something even microsoft cracks down on) and It's DEFINITELY not ok for you to have jailbroken software on the PSN, where my personal game experience can be affected by cheaters and griefers, all for the sake of freedom.

While I agree with you here, what about how Sony removed the option of installing Linux? For many people, that was a major factor in buying the console in the first place. Should people be allowed circumvent the restriction placed in order to access the function they were promised upon purchase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with you here, what about how Sony removed the option of installing Linux? For many people, that was a major factor in buying the console in the first place. Should people be allowed circumvent the restriction placed in order to access the function they were promised upon purchase?
I want to know who these people are, that would buy a 500 dollar device, to try to run linux, with what is it, 256 megs of ram? What exactly are they doing on this that has any legitimatacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geohotz and a lot of other PS3 hackers where not out to break (something which is broken by design) the DRM to run illegitimate copies.

That Sony and Microsoft decided to sell their hardware at a loss to get a return on the games sold, then it's their decision and possible problem if it doesn't work out.

You don't see people that contributed to, for example, BSD licensed software complaining that Microsoft and Sony took their effort and never gave back.

I want to know who these people are, that would buy a 500 dollar device, to try to run linux, with what is it, 256 megs of ram? What exactly are they doing on this that has any legitimatacy?

People try to get Linux running on even more restrictive devices, like mobile phones. Besides, 256 RAM isn't that low as you think it is.

Also, Sony received a huge tax exemption by adding the OtherOS functionality to their console. Because with that they sold it as a specialized Personal Computer rather than an entertainment device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to know who these people are, that would buy a 500 dollar device, to try to run linux, with what is it, 256 megs of ram? What exactly are they doing on this that has any legitimatacy?

Have you ever gone onto a Linux forum before? These people are insane. But that still doesn't change the fact that it was a feature the PS3s were sold on.

Oh, and apparently some universities and the like were using them to make a networked supercomputer via Linux similiar to to Folding@Home program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just keeps getting better...

We have had to take the SOE service down temporarily. In the course of our investigation into the intrusion into our systems we have discovered an issue that warrants enough concern for us to take the service down effective immediately. We will provide an update later today (Monday).

Above and below via Shacknews

What makes this particularly odd is that until today, Sony has claimed that SOE servers were safe, thanks to keeping its services and databases separate from those of PlayStation Network. Now it sounds like SOE databases may have been compromised as well, but Sony may just be erring on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like that my personal info is floating out there now. I could care less about PSN being down though. All that means for me is that I can't spend more money in the PSN store and have to play games I already have. Oh noes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geohotz and a lot of other PS3 hackers where not out to break (something which is broken by design) the DRM to run illegitimate copies.

They obviously knew what they were doing. Regardless of their goals, they knew that, by far, the most common use of their hack was going to be pirating retail games.

That Sony and Microsoft decided to sell their hardware at a loss to get a return on the games sold, then it's their decision and possible problem if it doesn't work out.

I guess. But why side with geohotz?

The current business model really is a win-win. Sony & Microsoft win because they sell a lot of consoles, and make profits on the vast number of games that are sold. Consumers win because we got a cheap console with tonnes of great games!

Is there anything at all we gain from a cocky hacker sticking it to "the man"?

Again I don't think Sony handled the situation appropriately at all, but that doesn't make geohotz' position excusable or right.

You don't see people that contributed to, for example, BSD licensed software complaining that Microsoft and Sony took their effort and never gave back.

I don't understand the relevance to the argument above, but I'll bite. A developer who checks code into a BSD-licensed library/application knows what the implications are, and wouldn't check code into said library/application unless they were willing to accept the fact that their code was going to be used in a commercial application without compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony must be feeling thoroughly bummed in the gob right now.

Fortunately it seems the credit card extraction was purely from SOE and the database was an archived one from 2007, so I'm guessing the cards have now all expired. Probably not too difficult to work out the renewal date, though. :tmeh:

Bit weird that it was allegedly the same attack yet only SOE's credit card information was compromised. Presumably their active credit card databases are fairly secure and it was just some stupidly-stored backup or something that was nabbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortunately it seems the credit card extraction was purely from SOE and the database was an archived one from 2007, so I'm guessing the cards have now all expired. Probably not too difficult to work out the renewal date, though. :tmeh:

My bank change card numbers every renewal, which means I'm a tiny bit less worried about online services that store details. Still try to avoid them though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why Sony & Microsoft can afford to sell their very technically sophisticated hardware* for such a cheap price is because the whole thing is subsidized. Basically, they make a loss on the hardware, but for every software title sold they make $10 regardless of whether they published the game or not.

(* at the time!)

By circumventing Sony's DRM, customers no longer have to buy games for their system, and Sony is left selling a powerful system at a loss, with no way to make that money back.

Sony's business model is none of the consumer's concern. When someone buys a piece of hardware, they have every right to use it however they see fit, and if your business model doesn't allow for that, that's your problem, not the consumer's.

If you believe in the "right to tinker", then you have to pay for an un-subsidized console.

No, you don't. If they want to sell a console, they have to acknowledge that people will then own that console, and at that point they no longer have control over what happens to it. That's what ownership means.

It's like if you bought a car and the manufacturer tried to forbid you from installing your own preferred brand of spark plugs or whatever. They can't. The correct response to this is for them to make their spark plugs good enough that people want to continue to use them. The incorrect response is to threaten their customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and apparently some universities and the like were using them to make a networked supercomputer via Linux similiar to to Folding@Home program.

Back in 2007, Georgia Tech entered a partnership with Sony and IBM to create a cluster of Cell based machines; I talk to a guy in charge of the program and they kind of wanted to keep on extending it by using PS3 : same architecture with slightly less reliable components for a fraction of the price. That could have been possible because the PS3 could run Linux and thus could enter the cluster nearly seamlessly. I'm pretty sure their plan backfired around 2009 when Linux support was discontinued.

No, you don't. If they want to sell a console, they have to acknowledge that people will then own that console, and at that point they no longer have control over what happens to it. That's what ownership means.

Well, if you buy a book, despite being the book owner, you are not allowed to copy it, print it, sell it or even translate it... so ownership doesn't translate into yielding all rights to the customer.

It's like if you bought a car and the manufacturer tried to forbid you from installing your own preferred brand of spark plugs or whatever. They can't. The correct response to this is for them to make their spark plugs good enough that people want to continue to use them. The incorrect response is to threaten their customers.

I'm pretty sure that if you get an accident in a car customized with parts not supported by the manufacturers, you can say goodbye to your insurance or guarantee.

And if the parts are supported, it means they comply with a standard that the constructor uses to ensure their product integrity if it's modified.

Standardization also means that third party products go through some quality (and process) check; producing those parts could even mean paying a a fee to appear under the standard umbrella - I know this is true for Bluetooth, I'm not sure about others.

Car manufacturer might not loudly forbid weird use of your car, but they usually do not support it in anyway. If they had the same ways to check than Sony did, they would probably enforced it better.

What I mean is that it is in Sony's right to define the boundaries of use of their product - it's not a essential product, so if you don't agree with those boundaries, you can still NOT buy it. It's completely normal for them to condemn illegal use of their technology and try to suppress those (in some case it's not very smart, but it's not wrong)

What I find shitty and somewhat un-rightful is to remove support for a feature that was the sole reason a small but significant and legit amount of consumers (e.g. schools) bought a PS3 for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you buy a book, despite being the book owner, you are not allowed to copy it, print it, sell it or even translate it... so ownership doesn't translate into yielding all rights to the customer.

I agree with the fact that "ownership doesn't translate into yielding all rights to the customer" but your analogy is flawed as you can actually do all those things, provided you don't distribute them. Additionally, what you're talking about would be more akin to copying the PS3 and distributing knockoffs, rather than just using the product differently. The analogy here would be that you are absolutely allowed to turn a book that you buy into a pop-up book, or tear the pages out and glue them to your walls, or use it in any other way that doesn't violate copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that if you get an accident in a car customized with parts not supported by the manufacturers, you can say goodbye to your insurance or guarantee.

Customised cars need to be registered as so, and incur higher insurance premiums, if a car is modified and the modification is not declared there is a high chance that the insurance will not pay up.

Car manufacturer might not loudly forbid weird use of your car, but they usually do not support it in anyway. If they had the same ways to check than Sony did, they would probably enforced it better.

Not true. Many car manufacturers support custom mods, however they may not service it for you, and your warranty will be void. Same analogy. Though you could add in a PC analogy, If I bought a PC with a Gigabyte GPU, then switched that for an Asus GPU, I wouldn't be able to go to Gigabyte for support on a product which isn't theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you buy a book, despite being the book owner, you are not allowed to copy it, print it, sell it or even translate it... so ownership doesn't translate into yielding all rights to the customer.

All of those (except for selling, which you clearly are allowed to do, as evidenced by the existence of used book stores) are actually talking about creating a new copy or derivative work, not about modifying the one you bought. So, what Gwardinen said. At any rate "intellectual property" is a different beast from personal property, which is what a PS3 is.

I'm pretty sure that if you get an accident in a car customized with parts not supported by the manufacturers, you can say goodbye to your insurance or guarantee.

Insurance companies can cancel your insurance for whatever reason they want. Your premiums go up if you paint your car red; that doesn't make it illegal.

Car manufacturer might not loudly forbid weird use of your car, but they usually do not support it in anyway. If they had the same ways to check than Sony did, they would probably enforced it better.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Sony should "support" homebrew either. They reserve the right to kick you off PSN or whatever because that's an ongoing service that they're providing, but they don't have a right to dictate what you can and can't do with the machine after you've bought it. They can try, but if you're able to get around it they don't have a legal basis to do anything about it.

What I mean is that it is in Sony's right to define the boundaries of use of their product

It really isn't. Buying a PS3 is not a contract. You're not leasing it from them. You give them money and then you own it and they don't.

It's completely normal for them to condemn illegal use of their technology

which homebrew isn't. Sure it can be used for piracy, but it's the piracy that's illegal, not the modifications that make it possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it. I just received my credit card bill, and what'd you expect? Right... a 5 euro charge from Sony on the 17th of April. So, yeah.... my credit card has been used on PSN around the time of the hack.

of course this has nothing to do with the Stacking DLC I bought at the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying the hackers immediately used your card to buy Noby Noby Boy?

Make sure it wasn't just something you bought, PSN charges sometimes take weeks to show up on my statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's saying that means his card was in Sony's database, because he used it on PSN, and was therefore possibly available for stealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now