I am mad at the people that caused the problem, not Sony.
It's still possible Sony caused the problem themselves. Just because they point in a direction doesn't mean it's the right one.
I like to assume that Sony isn't lying to me to cover their ass.
I think it is silly to automatically call them liars.
I'm not calling them liars over this right now, I'm saying there's plenty of open room for doubt. I'll admit to having a bias in this situation in that I have an opinion I'm sticking with, but if it turns out Sony's side of the story is true (without any wiggle room), you're gonna see me saying, "Well, I guess that's that then" as opposed to, "LIARS! ALL OF THEM!"
Is this really "anonymous" or someone's retaliation for Sony suing the two hackers who made piracy possible (geohot and graf, I think) after that first group re-enabled Linux (failoverflow)?
It's not Anonymous.
Anonymous is anonymous, which means a subset of the group could be doing it.
One of the heads even said so.
TehSpectre on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
The resolution will be a big part of it.
And like I said earlier this morning, Sony has already lost on this issue. If it was indeed hackers, it means Sony was unprepared, incapable of messaging its consumer base, and is handling the fix at a slow pace.
There is no way to know the pace it is being "handled", only that is taking an extended period of time.
If hackers did cause the outage and it was something none of them had ever expected would be an issue, it may take a good amount of work to fix the problem, even if they are trying to get it done ASAP.
I feel as though they are trying to implement a real fix and not just a temporary patch, like they usually do.
TehSpectre on
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I am mad at the people that caused the problem, not Sony.
It's still possible Sony caused the problem themselves. Just because they point in a direction doesn't mean it's the right one.
I'd say it's silly to always assume that people act maliciously. People make mistakes, and it's okay. Even if it's in a large corporation. People see challenges as a thing to overcome. Especially if it comes with a prize. That's why we have hackers trying to crack the PSN security.
The situation so far, according to Sony (And we should take Sony's word for it because that is the only reputable source on the issue so far), is that there was some "outside intrusion" which they are trying to fix and the fix needs a rebuilding of part of the system. I think it's a fair enough reason to take the PSN down and, though I meant to buy a game, I can survive without it.
Sony's worked well for me for pretty much as long as I can remember, so it might tint my vision of the situation somewhat. I'm pretty satisfied overall, I can take a week or two of outage, I guess. I would assume they took it down for a good reason, at any rate.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
But see, their time to react with a voice to the public makes it suspicious.
Look, let me try to put my rationality into words.
Corporations exist to make money. That's the way it is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What becomes a bad thing is damage control. There's two forms of damage control being applied here; the first is actual physical damage control, on the network. The second is public image. On both fronts, I easily see Sony failing. I can only grant them the benefit of the doubt on the actual network mess. Maybe it is just going to take time, and that sucks.
But their public relations dropped the ball on this pretty bad, which skews the whole thing. It took them so long to respond in the first place, they immediately blame outside intrusion but are vague about it. There's no tech explanation aside from them noting, later, that they need to redo the entire infrastructure.
The wording is very, very precise, and it gives wiggle room for a rumor to be true - that customer records and/or user data was lost in this event, and reworking the infrastructure behind a service gives them a chance to blame it on that rather than "Bob accidentally dropped coffee on the goddamn machine."
Corporations want to lesson their negative images when shit happens. And they don't understand that being honest, upfront, and fast to respond on things is the best way to achieve that. The most telling aspect of this will be how they decide to repay users for lost time, if at all.
Spectre, I'm glad you feel that way but if you want to convince me, I need some sources.
No, if they had really wanted to take time and fix it correctly they would have left the PSN up and done a thorough job testing before rolling out a fix.
There's a reason why companies separate dev/test and prod. (Well, competent companies)
Any company that has to pull down it's production servers for days is obviously doing something very wrong behind the scenes.
Termina on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I am mad at the people that caused the problem, not Sony.
It's still possible Sony caused the problem themselves. Just because they point in a direction doesn't mean it's the right one.
I'd say it's silly to always assume that people act maliciously. People make mistakes, and it's okay. Even if it's in a large corporation. People see challenges as a thing to overcome. Especially if it comes with a prize. That's why we have hackers trying to crack the PSN security.
The situation so far, according to Sony (And we should take Sony's word for it because that is the only reputable source on the issue so far), is that there was some "outside intrusion" which they are trying to fix and the fix needs a rebuilding of part of the system. I think it's a fair enough reason to take the PSN down and, though I meant to buy a game, I can survive without it.
Sony's worked well for me for pretty much as long as I can remember, so it might tint my vision of the situation somewhat. I'm pretty satisfied overall, I can take a week or two of outage, I guess. I would assume they took it down for a good reason, at any rate.
Their system is poorly assembled if taking it all down is required to fix a part of it. The only way it could otherwise make sense is if the part affected was crucial to the entire backbone no matter what.
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
I'm not saying that IS what happened either, I'm arguing the possibility exists. I argue it as hard as I am because I believe it to be the case. But I'm open minded enough to admit to being wrong when everything about this is said and done. Which, by the way, won't be the day it is up and running again, because y'know there's still time for people to post their anonymous blogs about what happened.
i just hope after taking all this extra time to try and fix things so their network is more secure, some hacker doesnt crack it in the first day. that would mean this would probably happen again soon.
weeskwee on
Nintendo Network ID: weeskwee
XBL Gamertag: weeskwee
PSN: weeskwee
No, if they had really wanted to take time and fix it correctly they would have left the PSN up and done a thorough job testing before rolling out a fix.
Whoa wait a second. Let's say it was the security flaw people have been talking about the most (the download free games thing). What good would it do to leave the service up and allow the abuse to continue? O_o
Any company that has to pull down it's production servers for days is obviously doing something very wrong behind the scenes.
This I can agree with, it's just a question of where along the line the "something very wrong" comes in. Either it was at the construction phase, the fixing phase, or the trigger point for the event.
Henroid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
i just hope after taking all this extra time to try and fix things so their network is more secure, some hacker doesnt crack it in the first day. that would mean this would probably happen again soon.
Even I'm not cruel enough to find the humor in that.
... Well, okay, I would find the humor in it, but it hurts more than just Sony at that point. I'm not saying to a grand degree (wow, we're back to page 2 discussion now), just that people will notice.
Despite everything I've had to say here, when this is fixed, I very much hope it's the goddamn end of it.
This is an amusing thread. All that's happened is people can't play games online...A free service (some of us pay for the plus, but i don't believe that it's required for any game). In no way could I characterize this as anything but a minor inconvenience. And even among minor inconveniences, this is pretty laughable.
At a professional level, Sony's gotten a black eye over the whole thing. But i seriously doubt more than five people will be standing at gamestop looking at the xbox9000 vs playstation 56 and think, oh, there was that one time when PSN went down for a week.
Simply due to the fact that the PSN is "free" for most people doesn't really make a difference. Sony hyped up the online aspect of the PS3 so much that it is automatically associated with the system and most of it's games. Playing Call of Duty or Killzone offline by yourself doesn't really have the same effect as playing it online against other people. In fact I'm guessing that the majority of PS3 owners aren't even turning on the system with the network down - I know I'm not. All of the games I like to play are online capable. Without that aspect, the system is nothing but a $300 paperweight.
Telling people to just 'get over it' or try to see the issue from Sony's perspective does little to change the fact that people essentially can't use the product they paid for, going on almost half a week now. And with Sony being cryptic about the cause - remember, the 'download games for free' theory is only a rumor at this point - and steps that are being taken to resolve it, what can you expect but confusion and anger?
Though I am curious to see how Microsoft would handle the situation if they were exposed to a similar issue. If XBOX Live were down for as long as the PSN was; considering that it's a paid service, what would the reaction be?
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I just thought of one more thing to say and I feel so bad I'm immersed in this. It's Easter Sunday though and I've no family around and nobody I'm obligated to spend time with so fuck it, you're gonna read what I say.
I've noticed some people make the argument about how it's a free service, this sorta thing happens, you have to expect it, etc. And something was always bugging me about it but I finally figured it out.
How many of these people also tout the free service argument as a positive to rail against Live? They argue it as equal footing, only it's free, therefore Live is bad. But now all of a sudden PSN is a free service and you get what you pay for?
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Wasn't the Live downtime due to a huge influx of users though? Which would make it a matter of increased success, rather than a security flaw or intrusion.
... Look, I'm just saying.
Henroid on
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
Actually, yes. That's how the Justice system works, remember? You give the person the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty means just that, no? Then again, you took a pretty controversial case, I can't say if the guy was guilty or not, but wasn't he acquitted? I'd say that means that, as far as the law is concerned, he isn't guilty.
I kinda use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach in life. I'm going to assume Sony is being earnest here. I don't really have a reason to jump to conclusion based on rumors.
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
Actually, yes. That's how the Justice system works, remember? You give the person the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty means just that, no? Then again, you took a pretty controversial case, I can't say if the guy was guilty or not, but wasn't he acquitted? I'd say that means that, as far as the law is concerned, he isn't guilty.
I kinda use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach in life. I'm going to assume Sony is being earnest here. I don't really have a reason to jump to conclusion based on rumors.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "free of suspicion." In fact, that one line I just wrote is my exact stance on this whole debacle.
Henroid on
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
Actually, yes. That's how the Justice system works, remember? You give the person the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty means just that, no? Then again, you took a pretty controversial case, I can't say if the guy was guilty or not, but wasn't he acquitted? I'd say that means that, as far as the law is concerned, he isn't guilty.
I kinda use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach in life. I'm going to assume Sony is being earnest here. I don't really have a reason to jump to conclusion based on rumors.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "free of suspicion." In fact, that one line I just wrote is my exact stance on this whole debacle.
No, but innocent until proven guilty still means that, if you don't have proof from respectable sources, you have to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying Sony is free of suspicion, just that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see a reason to panic yet.
I just thought of one more thing to say and I feel so bad I'm immersed in this. It's Easter Sunday though and I've no family around and nobody I'm obligated to spend time with so fuck it, you're gonna read what I say.
I've noticed some people make the argument about how it's a free service, this sorta thing happens, you have to expect it, etc. And something was always bugging me about it but I finally figured it out.
How many of these people also tout the free service argument as a positive to rail against Live? They argue it as equal footing, only it's free, therefore Live is bad. But now all of a sudden PSN is a free service and you get what you pay for?
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.
I dunno, I just got a Live subscription for the first time in my life since they're on sale and it gives me a chance to see if paying for something that's typically free somehow means I'm getting a superior service. So far, playing my Haloz online is neat, but not really worth the cost of another full game per year.
It's annoying that PSN is down, but in reality it is free and you can only really gripe so much. Mostly, this points out the potential vulnerability of centralized services. Ideally, XBL and PSN would allow people to play on decentralized servers, as happens with most PC gaming, but we already know that that won't be happening.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
Actually, yes. That's how the Justice system works, remember? You give the person the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty means just that, no? Then again, you took a pretty controversial case, I can't say if the guy was guilty or not, but wasn't he acquitted? I'd say that means that, as far as the law is concerned, he isn't guilty.
I kinda use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach in life. I'm going to assume Sony is being earnest here. I don't really have a reason to jump to conclusion based on rumors.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "free of suspicion." In fact, that one line I just wrote is my exact stance on this whole debacle.
No, but innocent until proven guilty still means that, if you don't have proof from respectable sources, you have to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying Sony is free of suspicion, just that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see a reason to panic yet.
I guess we agree more or less, but choose to word things differently. :P
Henroid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Ideally, XBL and PSN would allow people to play on decentralized servers, as happens with most PC gaming, but we already know that that won't be happening.
Don't get me started on that (IW) shit. Seriously the worst thing to happen.
* user2: another funny function i found is regarding psn downloads
* user2: its when a pkg game is requested from the store
* user2: in the url itself you can define if you get the game free or not. requires some modification in hashes and so on tho
* user3: ..
* user2: is like
* user8:
* user3: my god
* user2: drm: off
Looks like it was not idle boasting.
edit: I can't really think of a good reason to not have a 'give me freebies' system completely isolated, if you must have it for dev testing purposes.
So, I was talking to a friend who is rather well connected in the game industry. The story he is hearing from people he knows who are PS3 devs is that the code that runs the PSN doesn't really do well at keeping various environments separate, especially with regards to the wallet. Apparently, what was happening is that people could connect to dev environments, use a fake CC number to give them all sorts of money in their wallet (which is perfectly valid for testing purposes), and then connect to the live environment and the live environment was just happy to assume that the money was valid. So, apparently what's taking so long is that they are completely rewriting the code. Oooops.
So, going back to 'innocent until proven guilty' that was being mentioned earlier... 'Innocent until proven incompetent' doesn't really sound any better.
So, going back to 'innocent until proven guilty' that was being mentioned earlier... 'Innocent until proven incompetent' doesn't really sound any better.
Well, I personally don't know if it's true or not, but I do trust my friend and I do know he's rather well connected.
It sounds about right, given that youtube video a few pages back.
Now I guess it's a balance between enough time that they can create a new secure PSN without Sonying it up, and not take too much time so as to not piss off their users.
If we assume the "stuff for free" error is what's really going on, then Sony majorly fucked up by coding their system so they have to shut down the *entire* service to fix that one part. They should be able to just shut down the store and leave everything else up. And then I could register my Portal 2 and my PS3 could go back to being a paperweight and I'd be happy.
I'm also guessing that the "minor inconvenience" crowd doesn't have demanding jobs. Not being able to play co-op portal on the one weekend that I know that me and my co-op buddy will both have free is not a minor inconvenience, it's a major headache that might delay my ability to play for weeks, given my schedule.
Brym on
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
If we assume the "stuff for free" error is what's really going on, then Sony majorly fucked up by coding their system so they have to shut down the *entire* service to fix that one part. They should be able to just shut down the store and leave everything else up. And then I could register my Portal 2 and my PS3 could go back to being a paperweight and I'd be happy.
People assume that the PlayStation Network is a strict progression of lines of code, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, Codey-todey... stuff.
Is this really "anonymous" or someone's retaliation for Sony suing the two hackers who made piracy possible (geohot and graf, I think) after that first group re-enabled Linux (failoverflow)?
It's not Anonymous.
Anonymous is anonymous, which means a subset of the group could be doing it.
One of the heads even said so.
Yeah but that wouldn't make it an Anonymous action, it would be an action performed by a guy who also happens to be in Anonymous. It would be like saying "Steves are serious alcoholics" because Steve is passed out drunk again.
Posts
I'm not calling them liars over this right now, I'm saying there's plenty of open room for doubt. I'll admit to having a bias in this situation in that I have an opinion I'm sticking with, but if it turns out Sony's side of the story is true (without any wiggle room), you're gonna see me saying, "Well, I guess that's that then" as opposed to, "LIARS! ALL OF THEM!"
One of the heads even said so.
And like I said earlier this morning, Sony has already lost on this issue. If it was indeed hackers, it means Sony was unprepared, incapable of messaging its consumer base, and is handling the fix at a slow pace.
If hackers did cause the outage and it was something none of them had ever expected would be an issue, it may take a good amount of work to fix the problem, even if they are trying to get it done ASAP.
I feel as though they are trying to implement a real fix and not just a temporary patch, like they usually do.
I'd say it's silly to always assume that people act maliciously. People make mistakes, and it's okay. Even if it's in a large corporation. People see challenges as a thing to overcome. Especially if it comes with a prize. That's why we have hackers trying to crack the PSN security.
The situation so far, according to Sony (And we should take Sony's word for it because that is the only reputable source on the issue so far), is that there was some "outside intrusion" which they are trying to fix and the fix needs a rebuilding of part of the system. I think it's a fair enough reason to take the PSN down and, though I meant to buy a game, I can survive without it.
Sony's worked well for me for pretty much as long as I can remember, so it might tint my vision of the situation somewhat. I'm pretty satisfied overall, I can take a week or two of outage, I guess. I would assume they took it down for a good reason, at any rate.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Look, let me try to put my rationality into words.
Corporations exist to make money. That's the way it is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What becomes a bad thing is damage control. There's two forms of damage control being applied here; the first is actual physical damage control, on the network. The second is public image. On both fronts, I easily see Sony failing. I can only grant them the benefit of the doubt on the actual network mess. Maybe it is just going to take time, and that sucks.
But their public relations dropped the ball on this pretty bad, which skews the whole thing. It took them so long to respond in the first place, they immediately blame outside intrusion but are vague about it. There's no tech explanation aside from them noting, later, that they need to redo the entire infrastructure.
The wording is very, very precise, and it gives wiggle room for a rumor to be true - that customer records and/or user data was lost in this event, and reworking the infrastructure behind a service gives them a chance to blame it on that rather than "Bob accidentally dropped coffee on the goddamn machine."
Corporations want to lesson their negative images when shit happens. And they don't understand that being honest, upfront, and fast to respond on things is the best way to achieve that. The most telling aspect of this will be how they decide to repay users for lost time, if at all.
No, if they had really wanted to take time and fix it correctly they would have left the PSN up and done a thorough job testing before rolling out a fix.
There's a reason why companies separate dev/test and prod. (Well, competent companies)
Any company that has to pull down it's production servers for days is obviously doing something very wrong behind the scenes.
Their system is poorly assembled if taking it all down is required to fix a part of it. The only way it could otherwise make sense is if the part affected was crucial to the entire backbone no matter what.
Taking Sony's word on it because they're the only 'reputable' source, yeah, I see the logic in that but it's also logically flawed. I hate to take this route of explanation (shitty analogy go), but when OJ Simpson denied killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were we suppose to take his word at it because he was the only reputable source there to witness what happened? Sony has a high interest in covering up what happened if it was their own fault. Anyone who suggests that's a wrong notion to have is being ridiculous.
I'm not saying that IS what happened either, I'm arguing the possibility exists. I argue it as hard as I am because I believe it to be the case. But I'm open minded enough to admit to being wrong when everything about this is said and done. Which, by the way, won't be the day it is up and running again, because y'know there's still time for people to post their anonymous blogs about what happened.
The entire basis of my arguments centers around not knowing, yours is all absolutes.
XBL Gamertag: weeskwee
PSN: weeskwee
Even I'm not cruel enough to find the humor in that.
... Well, okay, I would find the humor in it, but it hurts more than just Sony at that point. I'm not saying to a grand degree (wow, we're back to page 2 discussion now), just that people will notice.
Despite everything I've had to say here, when this is fixed, I very much hope it's the goddamn end of it.
Simply due to the fact that the PSN is "free" for most people doesn't really make a difference. Sony hyped up the online aspect of the PS3 so much that it is automatically associated with the system and most of it's games. Playing Call of Duty or Killzone offline by yourself doesn't really have the same effect as playing it online against other people. In fact I'm guessing that the majority of PS3 owners aren't even turning on the system with the network down - I know I'm not. All of the games I like to play are online capable. Without that aspect, the system is nothing but a $300 paperweight.
Telling people to just 'get over it' or try to see the issue from Sony's perspective does little to change the fact that people essentially can't use the product they paid for, going on almost half a week now. And with Sony being cryptic about the cause - remember, the 'download games for free' theory is only a rumor at this point - and steps that are being taken to resolve it, what can you expect but confusion and anger?
Though I am curious to see how Microsoft would handle the situation if they were exposed to a similar issue. If XBOX Live were down for as long as the PSN was; considering that it's a paid service, what would the reaction be?
I've noticed some people make the argument about how it's a free service, this sorta thing happens, you have to expect it, etc. And something was always bugging me about it but I finally figured it out.
How many of these people also tout the free service argument as a positive to rail against Live? They argue it as equal footing, only it's free, therefore Live is bad. But now all of a sudden PSN is a free service and you get what you pay for?
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.
There was much nerdrage.
... Look, I'm just saying.
Actually, yes. That's how the Justice system works, remember? You give the person the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty means just that, no? Then again, you took a pretty controversial case, I can't say if the guy was guilty or not, but wasn't he acquitted? I'd say that means that, as far as the law is concerned, he isn't guilty.
I kinda use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach in life. I'm going to assume Sony is being earnest here. I don't really have a reason to jump to conclusion based on rumors.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "free of suspicion." In fact, that one line I just wrote is my exact stance on this whole debacle.
No, but innocent until proven guilty still means that, if you don't have proof from respectable sources, you have to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying Sony is free of suspicion, just that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see a reason to panic yet.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I dunno, I just got a Live subscription for the first time in my life since they're on sale and it gives me a chance to see if paying for something that's typically free somehow means I'm getting a superior service. So far, playing my Haloz online is neat, but not really worth the cost of another full game per year.
It's annoying that PSN is down, but in reality it is free and you can only really gripe so much. Mostly, this points out the potential vulnerability of centralized services. Ideally, XBL and PSN would allow people to play on decentralized servers, as happens with most PC gaming, but we already know that that won't be happening.
I guess we agree more or less, but choose to word things differently. :P
Don't get me started on that (IW) shit. Seriously the worst thing to happen.
"It's about giving gamers a complete social connected experience...the PS3 is going to excel in this area".
Looks like it was not idle boasting.
edit: I can't really think of a good reason to not have a 'give me freebies' system completely isolated, if you must have it for dev testing purposes.
Steam
So, going back to 'innocent until proven guilty' that was being mentioned earlier... 'Innocent until proven incompetent' doesn't really sound any better.
Steam
Well, I personally don't know if it's true or not, but I do trust my friend and I do know he's rather well connected.
Now I guess it's a balance between enough time that they can create a new secure PSN without Sonying it up, and not take too much time so as to not piss off their users.
Steam
People assume that the PlayStation Network is a strict progression of lines of code, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, Codey-todey... stuff.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Yeah but that wouldn't make it an Anonymous action, it would be an action performed by a guy who also happens to be in Anonymous. It would be like saying "Steves are serious alcoholics" because Steve is passed out drunk again.