17 ms·

Sony: The Company That Kicked the Hornet's Nest

124 points by daniel02216 15y ago

bane 15y ago
The real question is, for all companies that try to control access to even single user software via online authorization systems, how wise does this look now? I'm still playing Atari 2600 games, decades later, because they still work. Tying down use to a single-point-of-failure-authorization-system guarantees that your investment in creative works has a short shelf life. But most gamers know at least what the original Super Mario Bros theme song sounds like as coming from an NES.
- forensic 15y ago
  The #1 reason companies use online authorization is because people actually pay for it. Sony is all-too-familiar with people pirating games on their consoles. Online authorization eliminates huge swaths of pirates. Most consumers aren't thinking about 10 years from now when they buy. They're thinking about getting their dopamine fix RIGHT NOW. And online authorization makes them give up their CC# to get it.
  - Jach 15y ago
    I've always wondered how Sony measures these things. What do they use to show that it actually stops piracy (I'm sure it can slow it down a bit) for a lot of people, and that those people then turn into customers? How do they control for things like "popular game" vs. "unpopular game", how do they control for pirates who try the game then buy?
    - pyre 15y ago
      How many people go through the time and effort to mod their console just to 'try before they buy?' There may be a handful, but this isn't PC gaming we're talking about here.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    It's not hard at all to circumvent this, I doubt that it "eliminates huge swaths of pirates". Does Microsoft's Windows activation scheme stop people from pirating Windows? I don't think it had any significant effect, people just download images that have activation already patched out.
    - robryan 15y ago
      Microsoft Activation puts enough down to try and convert more sales without getting in the way to much of legit customers. I think it's a good compromise, only other thing I would do maybe is try and identify pirates and try and get them to pay say $50 or something, they aren't going to pay the full windows price but I think a lot would pay a lower amount that aren't paying at all at the moment.
    - flomo 15y ago
      In Microsoft's case, their main concern is OEM piracy, and the activation system diminishes the quality of the pirated product sold to the unwitting consumer. And anecdotally, the activation has pretty much stopped casual sneakerware piracy. People don't loan out their Windows CDs like they used to.
- code_duck 15y ago
  Do they see this as a problem? The most successful 8 and 16 bit game companies have been finding ways to capitalize on their past library on all the current platforms. They'd much rather have you pay for a Virtual Console than plug in your 25 year old hardware and have a go.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    You know what, often times I'd rather pay for a Virtual Console than plug in my 25 year old hardware.
    - code_duck 15y ago
      I think it's a great service, too. I was just pointing out that older games not working might be seen as mildly helpful by the game companies, rather than as a problem. I'm glad they still make games available in modern forms, but I do value the ability to play in emulators.
  - younata 15y ago
    You know what? I was born after the 8/16 bit era (well, born just as the 16 bit was closing). My choices for playing these games are: ebay, emulators, and virtual consoles. ebay can get too expensive REALLY quickly. emulators are legal, but the games I would play on them are definitely pirated. That, and I have to deal with a control scheme the game wasn't designed to be played on. virtual consoles offer pretty much the exact experience as the real thing, and they're affordable. So, yeah, I'd much rather pay for a Virtual Console than go out and buy hardware which is older than me.
    - code_duck 15y ago
      Some people really value the original experience, and like to have the old hardware. Though the original Sega, Atari and Nintendo consoles and the c64 hold a special place in my heart, I'd rather fire up a emulator or buy an iPod version at this point, too.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  I will no longer buy creative software that has an activation system that hasn't been fully cracked. I've been bit by problems activating legitimately purchased Sony software (I started as a Sonic Foundry customer) and being unable to work on my music. I don't want to find that, 10 years from now, I can't go back and remix an old song because the activation system is offline.
- patio11 15y ago
  guarantees that your investment in creative works has a short shelf life Talk to Thomas if you want actual numbers, but the overwhelming majority of AAA games have fairly predictable sales curves with a peak window measured in weeks or, in some cases, days. See also books, movies, music, etc. Evergreen content is highly anomalous in creative industries.
  - Lewisham 15y ago
    AMA video game researcher (Computer Science). I can confirm the truth of this, but I don't have any hard sources right now. If a AAA title doesn't move 1 million copies in opening week, the studio is going to be in trouble either directly financially, or with the publisher (see: Mirror's Edge). Everyone is fully aware of the ridiculousness of where the market is right now.
    - robryan 15y ago
      I bet game developers hate this effect, years of development time to effectively try and market a game into peoples hands in the first couple of weeks whether they like it or not. This I much prefer the path many MMO's have taken or a game like TF2, continue to add over time to keep a solid value proposition for years to come rather than the 2 weeks after it comes out.
      - bane 15y ago
        I think this is sort of what I'm getting at. The Game industry is moving rapidly to copy the Movie industry. Years of work, tens of millions of dollars, splashy and expensive ad campaign all culminating in a couple weeks' worth of sales and the bargain bin/used game box/forgotten 3 months later. The vast majority of which barely break even with production costs. Old game mags used to have a metric called "replayability". Games with poor re-playability were dinged by the gaming press as offering low-value for the dollar to the gamer. I'm just wondering if the Movie style approach offers similar low-value for the dollar for the game makers in terms of the amount of money required to advertise to gamers for every AAA title that comes out the door, only to throw all that work away next month. It's almost like the industry is pumping out Mandalas, then sweeping them away. Heck Mega Man (Rock Man) has had 7 or 8 games with virtually the same artwork (the most expensive part of game production). A modern developer might look at this and say "we'll just release a MegaMan game and every year release more enemies with more stages, weapons and bosses that just figure into the main release." (I'm thinking Mega Man of course because I'm in the process of replaying through the series again and Capcom is losing millions from the PSN nonsense). I guess what I'm rambling about is that there has to be a better way for the studios and the gamers to find better value in terms of longevity on both the development costs and the purchase price of the games -- and tying the games to a transient online auth system isn't going to do it.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  How does one politely ask, what are you talking about? My PS3 has been working fine since the PSN went offline. Actually, it's been disconnected from the internet (for unrelated reasons) since long before that. All my games play fine. All my blu-ray discs play fine. I have no reason to suspect that they will not continue to work decades from now should I choose to keep them that long.
  - jackvalentine 15y ago
    I think he's referring to this item from earlier in the week: "This is What Irony Tastes Like: Capcom and the PSN Outage" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2539591 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2539591
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      Oh, so a downloaded game doesn't work. Well, if we're to compare apples to apples, the Atari 2600 online store has been offline for a while, too.
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        But when the iTunes store is down, I can still play Angry Birds and Splinter Cell, to make a much more appropriate comparison.
  - bane 15y ago
    http://kotaku.com/5794533/playstation-outage-makes-some-capcom-games-unplayable-offline http://kotaku.com/5794533/playstation-outage-makes-some-capc...
- Lewisham 15y ago
  None of the consoles are using online authorization to ensure game playability. The figures peg consoles that go online to be about 30%, that means the majority will never see an internet connection. Games like those published by Ubisoft do this on PC, and when it goes down, they say "well, if only you guys didn't pirate our games all the time, we wouldn't have to abuse you this way." And, to be honest, they have a point, because PC game piracy is out of control. No-one thinks online authorization is great. It pisses off legitimate customers and it's another service you have to run. It's not like the publishers are really getting anything tangible out of it bar the hope that their games won't be pirated to all hell (they will be). I would like it if games/consoles had a kill switch on them, so that after x years they no longer require an authorization in case the service goes away, but I highly doubt that will happen.
  - kabdib 15y ago
    There are titles on the PS3 that won't work unless you're connected to PSN. I /think/ there are 360 titles that do this, at least to some content. It's not something that the console makers do themselves. [edit, spelling]
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      It's apparently two titles that were download only. Not games that came on discs, which would be the appropriate comparison for older consoles.
  - ZoFreX 15y ago
    > And, to be honest, they have a point, because PC game piracy is out of control. No, they do not have a point. I bought Settlers 7, shortly after release, for full price. I couldn't play it. My internet connection at the time would "blip" every ten minutes or so, it would go down for a couple of seconds and come back up. Every time this happened I got kicked out of my game. The next Ubisoft game that came out, I pirated. Why? Because the pirated version of Settlers 7 /works/. If I'm paying something, I expect a better experience than I would get if I didn't pay. To me, that seems like a fairly basic tenet of economics. Many game companies "get it". Valve for example provide me with unending streams of new content for games I have paid for, even going as far as giving me a free copy of Portal 2. Thanks Valve! You win money.
daimyoyo 15y ago
When Sony started their assault on GeoHot I sold everything in my house that had a Sony logo on it. Not only have they had the info of PSN players compromised, they are now a company with a reputation of going after hackers. The best way to deal with people modifying your hardware is to embrace it the way Microsoft has, or at least understand it will happen and focus on your product the way apple does. Instead, Sony's arrogance threatens to destroy it. The times are changing and if Sony can't accept that, maybe they should go back to rice cookers.
- mishmash 15y ago
  We've got a 52" Bravia, Sony 5.1 system, PS3 with 15 games or so and will absolutely _NEVER_ knowingly give Sony another penny. As soon as the PSN is up and I'm able to delete the PSN account (which they're saying will only be possible from your original PS3) we're going to pawn the PS3 and games. I don't want Microsoft to win the living room and so won't be supporting them either. I guess unless Wii2 has beautiful graphics we'll be an exclusive PC gaming house. The whole situation is disgusting. I don't get to play much but it really pisses me off that Sony has essentially killed one of the only great activities that I've kept from child to adulthood.
  - briansmith 15y ago
    > I don't want Microsoft to win the living room and so won't be supporting them either. I guess unless Wii2 has beautiful graphics we'll be an exclusive PC gaming house. On which PC operating system?
    - mishmash 15y ago
      Steam on a Mac Pro.
      - toast76 15y ago
        I hope you enjoy both the games :)
mrspandex 15y ago
The attack on Sony was not against the company, it was against its customers. I'm sure this will damage Sony in a huge way, but I have 0 respect for the people who did this.
- chrischen 15y ago
  I'm sure it was against the company too, but I agree the people who actually did the break-in are not getting enough flak.
ianferrel 15y ago
This seems like complete speculation. Is there any evidence that Sony's data breach is in any way related to a hacker backlash? The closest thing the article provided was a file left on Sony's servers referencing Anonymous. That's pretty week.
- Lewisham 15y ago
  Well, it will be until anyone is apprehended. I think it is fair to say that Sony did "kick the hornet's nest." Is that what caused them to become a target for black hats? Unlikely. Whoever did this was likely looking for a big score, likely to try and sell the data to organized crime, and thus an ideological attack doesn't make a lot of sense. However, it seems very plausible that some gray hats like Anonymous started kicking the tires of their security systems, and shared information that indicated things were looking lax, and that's what brought the black hats in. If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough. And Sony obviously wasn't.
9999 15y ago
"The Hotz incident was followed in February by a German police raid on the apartment of Alexander Egorenkov, another hacker who had distributed software that let PlayStation consoles run homemade games. Other technology companies have found ways to channel hackers' energy without resorting to lawsuits. Microsoft (MSFT), for instance, permits hackers to unlock its Kinect gaming device and invites some of them to its conferences. Google (GOOG) pays white-hat hackers who help identify bugs. Sony is far more uncompromising, says Robert Vamosi, a senior analyst at security firm Mocana. "Hardware manufacturers like Sony just aren't very good about listening when a security researcher presents them with a flaw," Vamosi says. " That paragraph I just quoted up there is some of the sloppiest journalism I've ever seen. The analogy being drawn is completely without merit. Microsoft is "hacker" friendly because they allow people to fool around with the Kinect? And Sony is hacker unfriendly because they removed a feature (the Linux install option) that they feared would lead to massive piracy? And Google is just great because they offer bounties for security flaws? In what way are any of those facts similar? None of them are even referring to the same sort of "hacking." If Google made a game system that made its money based on licensing fees from software sales, it would do everything within its power to prevent piracy. Microsoft already does this. Running homebrew was not what Sony was trying to stop. What I'm about to say will probably be very unpopular here. Anyway, the "hacker" (I hate their usage here... they should say cracker) excuse that they are just trying to enable homebrew software is utterly laughable as well. As soon as Geohotz was successful, numerous other companies capitalized on it and went to that next (tiny, tiny, tiny) step to enable running pirated games. Should Sony have sued Geohotz? Probably not. But what did Geohotz honestly think people were going to do with his developments? Does he want people to keep making games for the PS3? Did he honestly think that people wouldn't immediately turn around and use his progress to pirate games? The ethics of this supposed "hacker" community leave a lot to be desired, and I truly wish we could return to the old usage of the term, and stop applying it to people that are really just safe crackers and thieves. Our laws are completely inadequate for addressing this kind of abuse now, and I dread to see what sort of draconian measures will be put in place in response to this sort of shortsighted, unethical, and lame "hacking." If you don't want a closed system, then don't buy it. This is what will give us more open systems in the future, not enabling pirates.
- 15y ago
m0dE 15y ago
I just finished watching Sony's PSN Relaunch Announcement. It kept on making me think: Why not just hire Geohotz? Let's just say Geohotz accepts the offer and works in PSN. I think the general public will be convinced that PSN is now secured by the top elite hacker in the world who pointed out Sony's security flaws. Furthermore, Sony will appeal to consumers that they're humbly admitting their mistake and are dedicated to improve their security. Yes, I know the root key and identity theft are completely different. Also, whether Geohotz actually does anything to Sony is irrelevant. I'm strictly talking within PR scope.
- blhack 15y ago
  Do you think he'd accept? Would you?
  - m0dE 15y ago
    "Let's just say"
  - 9999 15y ago
    Do you honestly think they would ask him? Why would they? Is he an expert on server side security even? The security vulnerabilities that were exploited for the PSN hack have almost nothing to do with his realm of knowledge. What will actually happen is this: Sony, MS, Nintendo, EA, Activision, and virtually every other IP holder will lobby very, very, very hard to change the DMCA to be far stricter, and people that do anything even remotely close to what Geohotz did will find themselves in a Federal prison, regardless of whether or not what they did was truly unethical.
    - blhack 15y ago
      >Do you honestly think they would ask him? Why would they? Yes. Because he is quite clearly a talented hacker. Do you think it would make more sense to hire somebody who may not have experience with sony's technology?
brisance 15y ago
Actually Sony brought this unto themselves longer than that, starting with the Sony-BMG rootkit. I've actively avoided buying Sony products since.
hnsmurf 15y ago
The media is largely conflating two very different definitions of "hacker" here. There's a big difference between the people who jailbreak hardware and the people who steal credit card data. The former is arguably legal and moral, the latter is neither. The type of hacker that brought down PSN and stole credit card data needs no motive other than the millions of dollars of credit fraud that will follow. They need only opportunity.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Motivation aside, there's pretty strong parallels between breaking into the PSN, and breaking into the PS3 hypervisor. Obviously the hypervisor was a much harder nut to crack and GeoHot is likely far more skilled than the PSN people, but he's basically a grey hat systems cracker.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
stcredzero 15y ago
I keep on pointing this out. Compare the two groups: - Sony a big company with big company HR bureaucracy - The worldwide interest group re: Hacking Sony might have one or several groups within the company involved with a given project. The population interested in hacking a popular Sony project is not only very large, but constitutes a frictionless global meritocracy interacting via the Internet. Conclusion? When it comes to big companies vs. the hacker communities, it's asymmetrical warfare, and the big companies are the underdogs. Big companies are outnumbered and outclassed. However, instead of behaving like the outclassed guerillas they are, they keep acting like they're the empire, and keep getting bloodied in losing fights. All it takes is a few minutes of thought to realize that DRM is the worst possible tactical position they could possibly take. Companies that do this are deluded. But here's the real kicker: It is possible for companies to use the principles of asymmetrical warfare and win fights. You have to pick your battles based on sound economic principles. You have to pick your battles, such that the huge numerical and training advantages of the adversary are moot. I know how to do this. EDIT: Here's a hint. Take a look at your bug tracker. Imagine that it only has reports where the bugs are hard or impossible to reproduce. Imagine that the consequences of the bug are separated by several weeks time from the probable causes. Imagine that there are tens of thousands of such reports. Imagine that the reports only constitute a small fraction of actual occurrences. It is quite possible to put parties trying to crack your system in exactly this position. If you make it easy to "crack" your program, and instead put all of your effort towards clandestine detection, then there is no incentive for people to fully crack your system, such that they can find the detection mechanisms. Separate the consequences of detection from the actual detection by a time span of several weeks. Use detection to protect value-add and up-sell revenue which is inherently dependent on server-side implementation. Use honeypots. Your "easily cracked" version 1 becomes a kind of honeypot for detection, which protects your real revenue stream. Present a hack-y feeling loophole that lets people acquire your value-add content for a sizable discount from full-price. Remember, you're fighting an asymmetrical conflict. Be sneaky. Don't even let your opponent know she's even in a contest if you can help it. Fool them into thinking they've "won."
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  HBGary?

124 points by daniel02216 15y ago

bane 15y ago

The real question is, for all companies that try to control access to even single user software via online authorization systems, how wise does this look now? I'm still playing Atari 2600 games, decades later, because they still work. Tying down use to a single-point-of-failure-authorization-system guarantees that your investment in creative works has a short shelf life. But most gamers know at least what the original Super Mario Bros theme song sounds like as coming from an NES.

forensic 15y ago
The #1 reason companies use online authorization is because people actually pay for it. Sony is all-too-familiar with people pirating games on their consoles. Online authorization eliminates huge swaths of pirates. Most consumers aren't thinking about 10 years from now when they buy. They're thinking about getting their dopamine fix RIGHT NOW. And online authorization makes them give up their CC# to get it.
- Jach 15y ago
  I've always wondered how Sony measures these things. What do they use to show that it actually stops piracy (I'm sure it can slow it down a bit) for a lot of people, and that those people then turn into customers? How do they control for things like "popular game" vs. "unpopular game", how do they control for pirates who try the game then buy?
  - pyre 15y ago
    How many people go through the time and effort to mod their console just to 'try before they buy?' There may be a handful, but this isn't PC gaming we're talking about here.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  It's not hard at all to circumvent this, I doubt that it "eliminates huge swaths of pirates". Does Microsoft's Windows activation scheme stop people from pirating Windows? I don't think it had any significant effect, people just download images that have activation already patched out.
  - robryan 15y ago
    Microsoft Activation puts enough down to try and convert more sales without getting in the way to much of legit customers. I think it's a good compromise, only other thing I would do maybe is try and identify pirates and try and get them to pay say $50 or something, they aren't going to pay the full windows price but I think a lot would pay a lower amount that aren't paying at all at the moment.
  - flomo 15y ago
    In Microsoft's case, their main concern is OEM piracy, and the activation system diminishes the quality of the pirated product sold to the unwitting consumer. And anecdotally, the activation has pretty much stopped casual sneakerware piracy. People don't loan out their Windows CDs like they used to.
code_duck 15y ago
Do they see this as a problem? The most successful 8 and 16 bit game companies have been finding ways to capitalize on their past library on all the current platforms. They'd much rather have you pay for a Virtual Console than plug in your 25 year old hardware and have a go.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  You know what, often times I'd rather pay for a Virtual Console than plug in my 25 year old hardware.
  - code_duck 15y ago
    I think it's a great service, too. I was just pointing out that older games not working might be seen as mildly helpful by the game companies, rather than as a problem. I'm glad they still make games available in modern forms, but I do value the ability to play in emulators.
- younata 15y ago
  You know what? I was born after the 8/16 bit era (well, born just as the 16 bit was closing). My choices for playing these games are: ebay, emulators, and virtual consoles. ebay can get too expensive REALLY quickly. emulators are legal, but the games I would play on them are definitely pirated. That, and I have to deal with a control scheme the game wasn't designed to be played on. virtual consoles offer pretty much the exact experience as the real thing, and they're affordable. So, yeah, I'd much rather pay for a Virtual Console than go out and buy hardware which is older than me.
  - code_duck 15y ago
    Some people really value the original experience, and like to have the old hardware. Though the original Sega, Atari and Nintendo consoles and the c64 hold a special place in my heart, I'd rather fire up a emulator or buy an iPod version at this point, too.
nitrogen 15y ago
I will no longer buy creative software that has an activation system that hasn't been fully cracked. I've been bit by problems activating legitimately purchased Sony software (I started as a Sonic Foundry customer) and being unable to work on my music. I don't want to find that, 10 years from now, I can't go back and remix an old song because the activation system is offline.
patio11 15y ago
guarantees that your investment in creative works has a short shelf life Talk to Thomas if you want actual numbers, but the overwhelming majority of AAA games have fairly predictable sales curves with a peak window measured in weeks or, in some cases, days. See also books, movies, music, etc. Evergreen content is highly anomalous in creative industries.
- Lewisham 15y ago
  AMA video game researcher (Computer Science). I can confirm the truth of this, but I don't have any hard sources right now. If a AAA title doesn't move 1 million copies in opening week, the studio is going to be in trouble either directly financially, or with the publisher (see: Mirror's Edge). Everyone is fully aware of the ridiculousness of where the market is right now.
  - robryan 15y ago
    I bet game developers hate this effect, years of development time to effectively try and market a game into peoples hands in the first couple of weeks whether they like it or not. This I much prefer the path many MMO's have taken or a game like TF2, continue to add over time to keep a solid value proposition for years to come rather than the 2 weeks after it comes out.
    - bane 15y ago
      I think this is sort of what I'm getting at. The Game industry is moving rapidly to copy the Movie industry. Years of work, tens of millions of dollars, splashy and expensive ad campaign all culminating in a couple weeks' worth of sales and the bargain bin/used game box/forgotten 3 months later. The vast majority of which barely break even with production costs. Old game mags used to have a metric called "replayability". Games with poor re-playability were dinged by the gaming press as offering low-value for the dollar to the gamer. I'm just wondering if the Movie style approach offers similar low-value for the dollar for the game makers in terms of the amount of money required to advertise to gamers for every AAA title that comes out the door, only to throw all that work away next month. It's almost like the industry is pumping out Mandalas, then sweeping them away. Heck Mega Man (Rock Man) has had 7 or 8 games with virtually the same artwork (the most expensive part of game production). A modern developer might look at this and say "we'll just release a MegaMan game and every year release more enemies with more stages, weapons and bosses that just figure into the main release." (I'm thinking Mega Man of course because I'm in the process of replaying through the series again and Capcom is losing millions from the PSN nonsense). I guess what I'm rambling about is that there has to be a better way for the studios and the gamers to find better value in terms of longevity on both the development costs and the purchase price of the games -- and tying the games to a transient online auth system isn't going to do it.
tedunangst 15y ago
How does one politely ask, what are you talking about? My PS3 has been working fine since the PSN went offline. Actually, it's been disconnected from the internet (for unrelated reasons) since long before that. All my games play fine. All my blu-ray discs play fine. I have no reason to suspect that they will not continue to work decades from now should I choose to keep them that long.
- jackvalentine 15y ago
  I think he's referring to this item from earlier in the week: "This is What Irony Tastes Like: Capcom and the PSN Outage" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2539591 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2539591
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Oh, so a downloaded game doesn't work. Well, if we're to compare apples to apples, the Atari 2600 online store has been offline for a while, too.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      But when the iTunes store is down, I can still play Angry Birds and Splinter Cell, to make a much more appropriate comparison.
- bane 15y ago
  http://kotaku.com/5794533/playstation-outage-makes-some-capcom-games-unplayable-offline http://kotaku.com/5794533/playstation-outage-makes-some-capc...
Lewisham 15y ago
None of the consoles are using online authorization to ensure game playability. The figures peg consoles that go online to be about 30%, that means the majority will never see an internet connection. Games like those published by Ubisoft do this on PC, and when it goes down, they say "well, if only you guys didn't pirate our games all the time, we wouldn't have to abuse you this way." And, to be honest, they have a point, because PC game piracy is out of control. No-one thinks online authorization is great. It pisses off legitimate customers and it's another service you have to run. It's not like the publishers are really getting anything tangible out of it bar the hope that their games won't be pirated to all hell (they will be). I would like it if games/consoles had a kill switch on them, so that after x years they no longer require an authorization in case the service goes away, but I highly doubt that will happen.
- kabdib 15y ago
  There are titles on the PS3 that won't work unless you're connected to PSN. I /think/ there are 360 titles that do this, at least to some content. It's not something that the console makers do themselves. [edit, spelling]
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    It's apparently two titles that were download only. Not games that came on discs, which would be the appropriate comparison for older consoles.
- ZoFreX 15y ago
  > And, to be honest, they have a point, because PC game piracy is out of control. No, they do not have a point. I bought Settlers 7, shortly after release, for full price. I couldn't play it. My internet connection at the time would "blip" every ten minutes or so, it would go down for a couple of seconds and come back up. Every time this happened I got kicked out of my game. The next Ubisoft game that came out, I pirated. Why? Because the pirated version of Settlers 7 /works/. If I'm paying something, I expect a better experience than I would get if I didn't pay. To me, that seems like a fairly basic tenet of economics. Many game companies "get it". Valve for example provide me with unending streams of new content for games I have paid for, even going as far as giving me a free copy of Portal 2. Thanks Valve! You win money.

daimyoyo 15y ago

When Sony started their assault on GeoHot I sold everything in my house that had a Sony logo on it. Not only have they had the info of PSN players compromised, they are now a company with a reputation of going after hackers. The best way to deal with people modifying your hardware is to embrace it the way Microsoft has, or at least understand it will happen and focus on your product the way apple does. Instead, Sony's arrogance threatens to destroy it. The times are changing and if Sony can't accept that, maybe they should go back to rice cookers.

mishmash 15y ago
We've got a 52" Bravia, Sony 5.1 system, PS3 with 15 games or so and will absolutely _NEVER_ knowingly give Sony another penny. As soon as the PSN is up and I'm able to delete the PSN account (which they're saying will only be possible from your original PS3) we're going to pawn the PS3 and games. I don't want Microsoft to win the living room and so won't be supporting them either. I guess unless Wii2 has beautiful graphics we'll be an exclusive PC gaming house. The whole situation is disgusting. I don't get to play much but it really pisses me off that Sony has essentially killed one of the only great activities that I've kept from child to adulthood.
- briansmith 15y ago
  > I don't want Microsoft to win the living room and so won't be supporting them either. I guess unless Wii2 has beautiful graphics we'll be an exclusive PC gaming house. On which PC operating system?
  - mishmash 15y ago
    Steam on a Mac Pro.
    - toast76 15y ago
      I hope you enjoy both the games :)

mrspandex 15y ago

The attack on Sony was not against the company, it was against its customers. I'm sure this will damage Sony in a huge way, but I have 0 respect for the people who did this.

chrischen 15y ago
I'm sure it was against the company too, but I agree the people who actually did the break-in are not getting enough flak.

ianferrel 15y ago

This seems like complete speculation. Is there any evidence that Sony's data breach is in any way related to a hacker backlash? The closest thing the article provided was a file left on Sony's servers referencing Anonymous. That's pretty week.

Lewisham 15y ago
Well, it will be until anyone is apprehended. I think it is fair to say that Sony did "kick the hornet's nest." Is that what caused them to become a target for black hats? Unlikely. Whoever did this was likely looking for a big score, likely to try and sell the data to organized crime, and thus an ideological attack doesn't make a lot of sense. However, it seems very plausible that some gray hats like Anonymous started kicking the tires of their security systems, and shared information that indicated things were looking lax, and that's what brought the black hats in. If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough. And Sony obviously wasn't.

9999 15y ago

"The Hotz incident was followed in February by a German police raid on the apartment of Alexander Egorenkov, another hacker who had distributed software that let PlayStation consoles run homemade games. Other technology companies have found ways to channel hackers' energy without resorting to lawsuits. Microsoft (MSFT), for instance, permits hackers to unlock its Kinect gaming device and invites some of them to its conferences. Google (GOOG) pays white-hat hackers who help identify bugs. Sony is far more uncompromising, says Robert Vamosi, a senior analyst at security firm Mocana. "Hardware manufacturers like Sony just aren't very good about listening when a security researcher presents them with a flaw," Vamosi says. " That paragraph I just quoted up there is some of the sloppiest journalism I've ever seen. The analogy being drawn is completely without merit. Microsoft is "hacker" friendly because they allow people to fool around with the Kinect? And Sony is hacker unfriendly because they removed a feature (the Linux install option) that they feared would lead to massive piracy? And Google is just great because they offer bounties for security flaws? In what way are any of those facts similar? None of them are even referring to the same sort of "hacking." If Google made a game system that made its money based on licensing fees from software sales, it would do everything within its power to prevent piracy. Microsoft already does this. Running homebrew was not what Sony was trying to stop. What I'm about to say will probably be very unpopular here. Anyway, the "hacker" (I hate their usage here... they should say cracker) excuse that they are just trying to enable homebrew software is utterly laughable as well. As soon as Geohotz was successful, numerous other companies capitalized on it and went to that next (tiny, tiny, tiny) step to enable running pirated games. Should Sony have sued Geohotz? Probably not. But what did Geohotz honestly think people were going to do with his developments? Does he want people to keep making games for the PS3? Did he honestly think that people wouldn't immediately turn around and use his progress to pirate games? The ethics of this supposed "hacker" community leave a lot to be desired, and I truly wish we could return to the old usage of the term, and stop applying it to people that are really just safe crackers and thieves. Our laws are completely inadequate for addressing this kind of abuse now, and I dread to see what sort of draconian measures will be put in place in response to this sort of shortsighted, unethical, and lame "hacking." If you don't want a closed system, then don't buy it. This is what will give us more open systems in the future, not enabling pirates.

15y ago

m0dE 15y ago

I just finished watching Sony's PSN Relaunch Announcement. It kept on making me think: Why not just hire Geohotz? Let's just say Geohotz accepts the offer and works in PSN. I think the general public will be convinced that PSN is now secured by the top elite hacker in the world who pointed out Sony's security flaws. Furthermore, Sony will appeal to consumers that they're humbly admitting their mistake and are dedicated to improve their security. Yes, I know the root key and identity theft are completely different. Also, whether Geohotz actually does anything to Sony is irrelevant. I'm strictly talking within PR scope.

blhack 15y ago
Do you think he'd accept? Would you?
- m0dE 15y ago
  "Let's just say"
- 9999 15y ago
  Do you honestly think they would ask him? Why would they? Is he an expert on server side security even? The security vulnerabilities that were exploited for the PSN hack have almost nothing to do with his realm of knowledge. What will actually happen is this: Sony, MS, Nintendo, EA, Activision, and virtually every other IP holder will lobby very, very, very hard to change the DMCA to be far stricter, and people that do anything even remotely close to what Geohotz did will find themselves in a Federal prison, regardless of whether or not what they did was truly unethical.
  - blhack 15y ago
    >Do you honestly think they would ask him? Why would they? Yes. Because he is quite clearly a talented hacker. Do you think it would make more sense to hire somebody who may not have experience with sony's technology?

brisance 15y ago

Actually Sony brought this unto themselves longer than that, starting with the Sony-BMG rootkit. I've actively avoided buying Sony products since.

hnsmurf 15y ago

The media is largely conflating two very different definitions of "hacker" here. There's a big difference between the people who jailbreak hardware and the people who steal credit card data. The former is arguably legal and moral, the latter is neither. The type of hacker that brought down PSN and stole credit card data needs no motive other than the millions of dollars of credit fraud that will follow. They need only opportunity.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Motivation aside, there's pretty strong parallels between breaking into the PSN, and breaking into the PS3 hypervisor. Obviously the hypervisor was a much harder nut to crack and GeoHot is likely far more skilled than the PSN people, but he's basically a grey hat systems cracker.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

stcredzero 15y ago

I keep on pointing this out. Compare the two groups: - Sony a big company with big company HR bureaucracy - The worldwide interest group re: Hacking Sony might have one or several groups within the company involved with a given project. The population interested in hacking a popular Sony project is not only very large, but constitutes a frictionless global meritocracy interacting via the Internet. Conclusion? When it comes to big companies vs. the hacker communities, it's asymmetrical warfare, and the big companies are the underdogs. Big companies are outnumbered and outclassed. However, instead of behaving like the outclassed guerillas they are, they keep acting like they're the empire, and keep getting bloodied in losing fights. All it takes is a few minutes of thought to realize that DRM is the worst possible tactical position they could possibly take. Companies that do this are deluded. But here's the real kicker: It is possible for companies to use the principles of asymmetrical warfare and win fights. You have to pick your battles based on sound economic principles. You have to pick your battles, such that the huge numerical and training advantages of the adversary are moot. I know how to do this. EDIT: Here's a hint. Take a look at your bug tracker. Imagine that it only has reports where the bugs are hard or impossible to reproduce. Imagine that the consequences of the bug are separated by several weeks time from the probable causes. Imagine that there are tens of thousands of such reports. Imagine that the reports only constitute a small fraction of actual occurrences. It is quite possible to put parties trying to crack your system in exactly this position. If you make it easy to "crack" your program, and instead put all of your effort towards clandestine detection, then there is no incentive for people to fully crack your system, such that they can find the detection mechanisms. Separate the consequences of detection from the actual detection by a time span of several weeks. Use detection to protect value-add and up-sell revenue which is inherently dependent on server-side implementation. Use honeypots. Your "easily cracked" version 1 becomes a kind of honeypot for detection, which protects your real revenue stream. Present a hack-y feeling loophole that lets people acquire your value-add content for a sizable discount from full-price. Remember, you're fighting an asymmetrical conflict. Be sneaky. Don't even let your opponent know she's even in a contest if you can help it. Fool them into thinking they've "won."

chopsueyar 15y ago
HBGary?