Free in-game stuff is a nice gesture, but the problem is worse than just not being able to play games for a while. The real problem is the theft of personal information and credit card numbers(for those who placed their credit card information in the system in good faith of Sony's security). This isn't just a minor inconvenience of not being able to play some games for an indefinite duration; we can live with that. This represents a major risk of major headaches and potential significant financial loss and unauthorized liability for all customers of the system(especially for those who may not have some fraud protection or identity theft monitoring service of their own). Sony needs to take the situation a lot more seriously. Such simple tactics of pacification will not solve or mitigate the real problem, and may only serve to further enrage customers that the problem is not being taken more seriously, with a greater level of responsibility and accountability.
Honestly, the breech is severe enough that, in my opinion, the current system needs to be completely deprecated and replaced with a completely different system with a much higher level of proven security. This is not an unknown problem; many other companies have successfully installed systems with much better security and transaction monitoring. Yes, such systems are more expensive, but one thing I've learned over the years with technology is that trying to play it cheap simply costs you far more money in the long run--the money you paid for the cheap thing that didn't work plus the money you turn around and pay for the thing you should have just bought in the first place; in cases like this, there is the additional copious cost of damage control, recovery, and loss of customer and brand loyalty, all of which can far exceed the cost of any hardware and software technology combined.
ADDENDUM: Just to clarify, Sony, from the view of your customers, this isn't just an epic fail. This is an epic fuck up of biblical proportions.
EDIT: Modified the first statement to be more in context with the article, changed the first edit to be an addendum, which is more appropriately what it is, and changed this edit statement to reflect that it is the one true edit statement.