PSN Downtime Costing Capcom Big Bucks

[jovack22]

Oh noes!

Now that PSN is down, I won't be able to pay Capcom to unlock the material already on the disc I payed for!

 

[Odlus]

Of course the hackers are responsible for the consequences of the hacking. The question is whether the attempted good (striking at Sony) outweighs the bad (Capcom BAAAW, no PS3 multiplayer), and I'm not convinced it does.

Maybe you're too young to really understand the consequences of some of the things that happened here, so I'll give you the benefit out the doubt. But selling off the personal information of thousands of Sony's customers absolutely outweighs the attempted "good" (lol) that may or may not come out of attacking Sony.

 

[ace_of_something]

So wait, the DRM on capcom games doesn't work because of the outage? If so, that's hilarious.

They demand you're logged in to the PSN account that bought the game to play it, which isn't possible when PSN itself is down.
To my knowledge CapCom games are the only games which demand always-online and cannot be played with a different profile (PSN account) on an activated Playstation. Any other developer's games still work now (well, the offline parts at least), and can be accessed by any 'user' on the PS3 and not just the original purchaser's account.

I'm confused. I have 3 capcom (resident evil 5: gold, dead rising 2, marvel vs. capcom 3) games and they're some of my only ones that it is letting me play offline unlike say, bioware or EA anything really. Or are you just talking about 'downloadable' games?

 

[Beautiful End]

Well...there goes our chances of getting Megaman Legends 3 for the PS3/PSN.

Curse you, Nintendo Sony!!

 

[Traun]

Suck it up Capcom. Never depend on ANYONE but yourself. You cannot blame Sony or the hackers for this.

Finally, someone reasonable!

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

"PSN downtime costing [Insert Company Here] big bucks". I love you Capcom for all your flaws, and I know you're a very vocal company, but don't act like you're alone in this. Think about the companies that sell their games solely on PSN. Now THEY'RE fucked.

So Capcom is losing money it could be putting towards MvC3 DLC characters... Like Rogue...

Shit just got personal.

Your welcome. ;->

About time DRM bit the studio on the ass not the player

Ummm...

It bit the player on the arse here. The players can't play their games. Capcom aren't getting flustered because people can't play their games. They're flustered because people can't buy more. But that is affecting all companies.

I would laugh at the "new games" comment, but that's tasteless and I like Capcom.

I'm really just not seeing a way for Sony to recover from this one. Ever.

That comment is sarcasm, right?

I find it hard to believe that a huge company won't recover from this. It will make a huge negative effect but I think they will recover in time.

I guess it depends on what the next cycle brings us. Considering how Sony's been in the red for the majority of this console cycle, can you imagine if a fiasco of this magnitude happened before the advent of the PS3? They most certainly would not have recovered.

As hard as it is to imagine a electronics giant like Sony going under, with everything being so high risk nowadays it's not that far-fetched. One thing's very likely though, if it comes, your PS4 won't be Ultra HD native with the next big disc format as it's drive. They're going to have to dial it down.

 

[geizr]

Of course the hackers are responsible for the consequences of the hacking. The question is whether the attempted good (striking at Sony) outweighs the bad (Capcom BAAAW, no PS3 multiplayer), and I'm not convinced it does. There's little you can do in the world without hurting someone in some way. I imagine IT people at Sony are inconvenienced by all this, but the hackers' rationale would not have to be very strong for that not to matter. To use an extreme for example, if the hacking killed someone (somehow) it would be very hard to justify.

This is from a perspective of the hacking as protest, which I don't think we can say for sure is the case.

This sounds like you are trying to change your tone from your prior statement, to which I was responding:

I don't think this "collateral damage" shines a particularly bad light on the hackers, if it's true the hacking was an act of protest. This was "direct action" of wrecking shit, and you can't do that without hurting someone. I don't think that means it's inherently wrong. The real question is the argument for attacking in the first place.

This is the statement that, to me, sounded like you were trying to apologize for the hackers' actions, somehow justify that their actions may not be so bad. I'm sorry; their actions are absolutely atrocious because of the wide-spread harm it has caused(and is causing, not just to Sony but to other businesses that had no hand in all this) and the considerable risk of danger that it presents to PSN users.

What are the legal and legitimate means? Complaining on message boards? Not buying Song products? What good is that going to do against a giant like Sony which has the weight to force this industry in a direction that's bad for the consumer. Try something more proactive like altering your own PS3 to do something you want and Sony will sue you. The legal system can be used a bludgeon since they don't need to win, only to drain enough money out of the target to ruin their lives and frighten others.

The only true power the consumer has against a business is to buy or not to buy. But, a consumer does have the ability to encourage others to buy or not to buy and give reasons for such recommendations, but you cannot deny others their right to conduct commerce with a business just because you have some disagreement. Petitioned boycotts and class action suits are tools available to the consumer to express displeasure and desire for change of business practices or policies. It is also possible to lobby legislators to enact laws that would force businesses to change their actions. Of course, this takes considerable effort and some capital, however, this is why consumer advocacy groups exist. There are probably other means, of which I am not aware, besides these that are also legitimate and do not require performing such acts as has been perpetrated by the hackers.

We have laws for a reason. They don't always work as well as we would like, but they are better than an alternative of brutish retaliation that would do nothing but destroy our society. Committing acts of vandalism, theft, and massive endangerment is not going to get much, if any, sympathy towards one's plight, least of all from those affected by such acts.

Also, are we talking about the hackers as protesters, or as data-thieves? If one if true, than the other probably isn't, at least with any intellectual purity; if they has the idea of making money out of hacking Sony, but also thought that it would be good to hurt Sony, then they're just gilding their attempt to profit. Which are we talking about?

It doesn't matter how they started; they became thieves the moment they broke past Sony's security(however tissue-paper thin it may have been) and extracted information for which they had no justifiable(legal or otherwise) reason to do so. If they were just doing DDoS type attacks or website defacement, there might be some argument to see them as protesters, but as it is, because they actually broke-in and took something that doesn't belong to them, they are thieves.

Another thing, there has been constant undertone in the media that the hackers' actions are as a form of protest against Sony's refusal to allow the OtherOS option anymore. Well, grow up, kids! Sony is perfectly in right to include or not include a particular feature in a device it sells, and it has right to protect its interests if such a feature could cause damage or losses to its business.

Sony didn't "include or not include", they disabled the feature with a mandatory firmware update. Want to both use OtherOS and play games that need the new firmware or use PSN? Too bad. Sony sold a product with a feature, then took it away.

Sony's desire to make money doesn't permit them to do anything. What if some developer made a bunch of great games for PS3 and Xbox, then signed some sort of exclusive deal with MS? PS3 users playing their older games would only encourage them to buy an Xbox to play the new ones and perhaps cease spending money on PSN or decide not to buy the next Sony console. Would Sony be in its rights to force all PS3s to disable those games to protect itself?

Sony makes available Terms of Service. If you purchase and use the product, then you are agreeing to those terms. Those terms do state that Sony may change the terms, and the current terms explicitly specify that one is not allowed to modify the system. One can make the argument of ownership, but consider this, while you may own the materials of the system in question, Sony still owns the design. This design includes hardware, firmware, and system software. Unfortunately, modification of the system also modifies the design, and being able to make such modifications usually requires access into that design, which is copyrighted and trade-secreted information, hence the reason reverse engineering is not allowed(installing a bigger hard drive does not modify the design). The terms expressly state you are not allowed to do this. Basically, Sony is protecting access to the design of the system.

Now, I'll agree that I don't like being dictated that I can't make modifications to something in my possession for which I made legal purchase. Be that as it may, either I make the decision to accept the terms and use the product as intended, or I decide not to accept the terms and return the product for refund(or just don't buy it in the first place). If I wish to protest the policy of the business that disallows my ability to make modifications, there are avenues, such as I have mentioned above, that could be taken. However, throwing a tantrum and assaulting the business, much less breaking into its servers and stealing information, is not a legitimate means of protesting.

I find it funny that you cite the Golden Rule when I don't believe Sony abides by it. Indeed, as you point out, they're only interested in what will profit them. How was taking OtherOS away from its users treating others the way Sony would wish to be treated? How about sueing people who go inside their own PS3s, trying to get it to do things Sony didn't design it for? Seems like Sony's the one that's claiming all the power, so I don't know how you can talk about reciprocity.

No, Sony doesn't necessarily abide by it, but that's not the nature of the Golden Rule. One doesn't abide by it only if everyone else is; one abides by it regardless if everyone else is or not. That's what it means to take the higher moral ground. Those who fail to abide by it will often reap the consequences of what they have sown(they suffer the consequences of mistreating others). One can say that what is happening now to Sony is the consequence of what it has sown by its actions(treating its customers poorly), and I would be hard press to argue otherwise. However, though there may be cause, it does not render immediate justification for the actions taken by the hackers in question.

The coincidence with the GeoHot case and the Anonymous DDoS is circumstantial until a direct link can be made.

Are you saying that GeoHot was directly involved with the hackers? That's quite an accusation to make when "the coincidence...is circumstantial".

Or are you instead saying that GeoHot's work with the PS3 may have been used by the hackers and that this reflect poorly on GeoHot? Because he worked his way into the recesses of a piece of his property and learned its secrets? If that's not wrong (it wasn't), then he isn't responsible for how people use his discoveries. Is the Chinese guy who invented gunpowder as a firework responsible for all the deaths firearms have caused?

I think you either misread my post, or I was not being clear enough for you. I do not feel there is any necessary connection between GeoHot and Anonymous and the hackers that have perpetrated the current crime. Such a connection has yet to be established, so the coincidence of events is purely circumstantial. If a direct connection is established, then the coincidence is no longer circumstantial. No accusation was made nor was there any intent to imply an accusation.

(and certainly, any merits their position of protest may have had, if this were such, have long since been lost in light of the consequences of their actions; the same thing happens to terrorists).

As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced this is the case. Inconvenience? Lost money for Sony and other companies? How do you measure these against the ideas of consumer rights the hackers would presumably have struck in the name of?

And what about the fact that those same consumers have been made bereft of access to the very games for which they have paid, denied access to further games which they could purchase, denied certain components of games for which they have paid, and had their information exposed in such a manner to incur significant personal risk to themselves. How has this been an advocacy for consumer rights by directly destroying the one thing that the consumer did actually have a right to, playing the games? As a PSN user, neither myself nor did a lot of other PSN users(if forum comments are any indication) ask these hackers to perform these actions for our sakes, for our rights as consumers; they took this action unilaterally of their own accord. If the comments on the Escapist forums and elsewhere are any indication, the vast plurality of PSN users don't give a flying leap whether the OtherOS feature was accessible or not; they just wanted to turn-on the system and play some games. Only a tiny few actually wanted the OtherOS feature. Are these few in right to cause such substantial harm and disablement for so many for reasons of their own wants? Should the right of the very few always so supersede so many? Where's the balance point? How do these few claim right to unilaterally make a sacrifice of so many without consent of those to be sacrificed? I'm sorry, but I will need more than this to be convinced of any justifiability along this line of reasoning(and war analogies won't work).

You're wasting your time establishing the hacking as an illegal act; I don't think anyone disputes this, but as I've said, I don't think think you've established the lack of moral worth of the action. Many protests are illegal and that, in of itself, does not make them evil.

Sony, among others, is a company that's trying to establish a new order in its relationship with its customers where it sells products as before but demands that buyers have little rights of ownership and must obey whatever it commands regarding its products. This is worth fighting.

Were the PSN hackers really protesters? I doubt it, given the treasure trove of credit card information they could have collected. But if they were? There is good to be found in what they did.

An act of protest against Sony's disablement of the OtherOS feature does not require the unauthorized access and extraction of information from Sony's servers and then the subsequent attempt to sell such information on the internet. That is simply theft for selfish gain, hence, the lack of moral grounds for the action. If they were just DDoSing or defacing website, one might be able to argue the point more, but the act of intrusion and theft has no justifiable connection to protesting the disabling of OtherOS.

Many protests against unjust laws are usually performed in defiance of such laws, that is, the protesters will perform the very action that the law attempts to restrict. If the hackers were simply hacking their PS3s and causing some collateral damage in the process, then there might be more of a point to argue. But, instead they broke into the servers and stole information that did not belong to them(and then attempted to profit by selling it). That information is not something that was being denied in order to implement the disablement of OtherOS. That information was denied because it is confidential and placed in Sony's trust by the public for safekeeping(which Sony failed, in a biblically epic way, to do). I see no way to justify their actions morally(cause is not immediate grounds for justification), but perhaps you see something I do not.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

So Capcom is losing money it could be putting towards MvC3 DLC characters... Like Rogue Gambit...

Shit just got personal.

Your welcome. ;->

Uhh... No. Don't worry though, I fixed it again. While I wouldn't mind having Rogue (she was my number 3 character), Gambit is top priority.

 

[Silver Patriot]

sooo when is psn comming back??

According to a Gamespot news bit, it will be fully restored May fucking 31st

Actually, according to an article from Giantbomb, that piece of information was never confirmed by Sony. To quote a favorite adage in the industry, their official stand now is: "it will be ready when its ready"

Oh great, because that ALWAYS ends well.

PSN. This Generation's Vaporware.

 

[mjc0961]

You Two are missing the point here. Even when Capcom is one of the first in saying it explicitly, the outage is affecting every developer/publisher out there. If a company as big as Capcom is feeling a dent in its revenue because of this, imagine what is going to happen with smaller ones (or those that are counting on Sony's infrastructure, like Pixel Junk).

Nah, only one missing the point here is you. I already knew that the downtime wasn't just hurting Sony and little kids who can't stand to be without CoD, thank you very much. And as this article was a line from Capcom, I was talking about Capcom, and pointing out how they're also losing money because they keep failing to deliver on stuff people wanted to buy.

God fucking damn it how long till people get this right.

This wasn't done by Anon, or some undisclosed criminal organization. This was most likely accomplished by a tiny number of people (if not solo) looking towards turning a profit.

Ironic how you cuss people out because they aren't "getting this right" and then go and get it wrong by spouting off another rumor. You want to talk about getting it right; you want to talk about facts? Okay. Whoever did this hasn't been caught yet, so nobody has any accurate knowledge of what groups they may or may not be affiliated with.

All of this, couple with how Capcom didn't want to make Lost Planet or Dead Rising, just makes me think that Capcom are gonna blame other people for their poor decisions.

"The Olympic 2012 Games are being held in london - thats why we lost 12 Billion this year".

"Andy Chalk spelled our company's name wrong, and now everyone looking for our stuff was looking for 'Capcon' and thought Capcom was a cheap ripoff brand. That's why we lost money."

 

[erbkaiser]

I'm confused. I have 3 capcom (resident evil 5: gold, dead rising 2, marvel vs. capcom 3) games and they're some of my only ones that it is letting me play offline unlike say, bioware or EA anything really. Or are you just talking about 'downloadable' games?

Only downloadable (PSN) games. And I know not all Capcom games uses this idiotic DRM (Megaman 9 and 10 do not for example), but their recent releases do. And to my knowledge Capcom is the only one doing so.

I have no problems with my other games I've tried (except of course for multiplayer and online sync), downloaded or disk based. Even games with DLC like Ass2Bro still work. Are you saying BiowEAre games are also broken? I know on the PC they want constant reactivation of the DLC, didn't know this was also the case for the PS3.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

So Capcom is losing money it could be putting towards MvC3 DLC characters... Like Rogue Gambit...

Shit just got personal.

Your welcome. ;->

Uhh... No. Don't worry though, I fixed it again. While I wouldn't mind having Rogue (she was my number 3 character), Gambit is top priority.

I was going to type some unflattering things about Gambit's quality in the last game (which isn't important, because I'm sure they'll make him awesome in this game, and he is a very cool character), but the results from the polls for what character people want next in MvC 3 were in recently...and it's fucking Venom. So we both lose. >_<

Maybe they'll release the two of them in a pack? *Gets hopes up*

 

[katsabas]

Oh nooooooo, Capcom is making less money! Oh, we must alert the church elders. Capcom. Who, for whatever reason, won't allow us to copy our game data.

I see no difference in being able to play SFIV online or not. The only DLC to buy are skins. On future projects like MVC3? Bare bone games that cost 60 euros? And releasing new versions of it? Forgive me if I laugh myself until my abs begin to ache.

I am so tired of people whining about PSN. No online? Play offline, there are so many good offline games. ME2, Fallout 3, Split Second, NFS HP, Wipeout HD, Mortal Kombat. Be patient. Do you want this done fast or done right?

 

[SinisterGehe]

I'm having trouble seeing the hundreds of thousands, let alone millions of dollars Capcom is supposedly losing. Can anyone explain to me how they make these numbers up?

Edit: I do understand it's affecting developers/publishers, especially the small ones. I just don't really believe these huge numbers that Capcom is throwing around.

I am sure they got someone who is professional looking after their finances inside the company. Because I bet you do not know anything about the financial books of Capcom.

It doesn't really matter how much money they are losing, the fact is that they are enough of it, to make a severe impact on their future plans.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

So Capcom is losing money it could be putting towards MvC3 DLC characters... Like Rogue Gambit...

Shit just got personal.

Your welcome. ;->

Uhh... No. Don't worry though, I fixed it again. While I wouldn't mind having Rogue (she was my number 3 character), Gambit is top priority.

I was going to type some unflattering things about Gambit's quality in the last game (which isn't important, because I'm sure they'll make him awesome in this game, and he is a very cool character), but the results from the polls for what character people want next in MvC 3 were in recently...and it's fucking Venom. So we both lose. >_<

Maybe they'll release the two of them in a pack? *Gets hopes up*

Even in MvC2, he was my best character. He wasn't instantly good, but once you invested enough time into him, he was a solid mid-tier character. And the last I checked, the top requested characters were Stryder, Venom, and Gambit, so I imagine he's coming soon. Dear god, I hope he's coming soon.

Then Rogue can come. Then Thanos! Then I can have my old team of Gambit/Rogue/Thanos. Ah, dreams...

 

[sb666]

Is anyone still defending these idiot hackers.