I received a wireless headset who I'm choose in the choice give by M$: 5 MGS games (in memory Kameo, PGR3, Halo3, Viva Pinata, don't remember the last) , a pad and wireless headset, may be also the Wifi connector but not sure, two one month xboxlive for the second repair. The only thing I do it's the call free to M$ for repair and said it's the second time and the first time it's very to long, and we got only one month gold but we're two got Gold active on the same console (what it's true) and she said :"I'm looking that we can make for you" and two days after M$ call us and make the offer. And known 5 peoples who got the same.
*ren* PSN Down, Customer Info Compromised
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
I received a wireless headset who I'm choose in the choice give by M$: 5 MGS games (in memory Kameo, PGR3, Halo3, Viva Pinata, don't remember the last) , a pad and wireless headset, may be also the Wifi connector but not sure, two one month xboxlive for the second repair. The only thing I do it's the call free to M$ for repair and said it's the second time and the first time it's very to long, and we got only one month gold but we're two got Gold active on the same console (what it's true) and she said :"I'm looking that we can make for you" and two days after M$ call us and make the offer. And known 5 peoples who got the same.
The only thing difficult to grasp is that as per your wrong analogy, they're not just offering Beatles, they're offering 4 of 9 different games across two affected platforms. If you are one of those gamers that either own all of those games offered for your affected platform or have zero interest in them, you still have the 30+ free Plus subscription that will give you other free games (during the duration of the membership) or other potential games you don't own cheaper. If you already are a Plus member, you get another 60 days added to your subscription.
You already called the offered titles ancient, without having the decency to point out that the games offered in fact could be considered 'top of the list' in their respective genres. Most of them also offer greatly more value and gametime than your average PSN game (i.e. Flower, Stardust, the PixelJunk games). Wipout Fure/HD can be considered a full retail game with the amount of its content, as can LBP.
And to put things into perspective - no one as far as I can tell is greatful or even arguing that anyone should be greatful. The better word here is adequate. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
Shifty said:
If they are already offering pretty much the top of the list of what you can get on PSN, anything beyond that list could be probably considered mediocre. Mediocre at the very least by the average user-rating it got (only counting 1st/2nd party games here). Sure, Flower would have been great - but I'm sure they have their reasons for not including in their list. And if you want it, you have a 30 day Plus trial to either try it out or probably get it cheaper. Also, I'm not sure which games are in Sony's direct control (1st / 2nd parties) and which are not. I assume the PixelJunk games, while published by Sony, are not games they could offer without significantly adding costs to themselves.
where are you from?
That's just it, they shouldn't have offered *any* titles because there is no way to pick titles that would make everyone happy, it's impossible. There's no point in arguing the value of any offered titles as the perceived value will never be the same between two people. It makes no difference if they are of varied genres, etc, in the end if the person receiving them has no interest in them then they are worthless and that person will have been let down. Being offered 1000 free games is completely useless if one has no interest in any of them. Like the titles you mention, makes no difference to me if Flower is critically acclaimed, Wipeout is considered a fuill retail game, etc, I have zero interest in any of them and if they were awarded to me I wouldn't even download them because their value to me is zero. Hence someone in that same situation will have been let down.
The correct compensation in my mind would have been to give people credit on psn, that's it. Anything else is just guess work and will fail to satisfy many people. With psn credits people can chose to use it exactly where they want, when they want and how they want. That's proper compensation and that's how you soften the blow of no psn for a few weeks because everyone will be happy.
I agree that's the ideal, but I don't think Sony can afford that, plain and simple. Given their finances, they can only offer low-loss 1st and 2nd party titles.
Where does this "many" come from, how many is many? And lets take it one step further, of these "many" how many have any real value to sony? The loudest complainers is usually those that Sony will benefit the least from especially considering their choice of platform is the competition.
Even if they could afford it, it's unreasonable to expect Sony to be out of pocket 100s of millions of dollars to pacify a tiny minority of intractable customers over a minor inconvenience caused by a criminal attack on their business.
wow, I can't even get what's rightfully mine back after lots of phone calls...maybe I call a different number!?
As ideal as that would be, that just isn't realistic nor is it feasable for a company like Sony, especially since they would not be able to control the credits spent across multiple accounts. Not only that but they'd also strain important profits off newer titles that are still in high demand.
If Sony had to take their network offline through no act of any 3rd party but purely because of a problem they directly caused, then yes, a bigger compensation than what they are offering would be fair. However this isn't the case and Sony is every bit of a 'victim' just as we customers were in this. We can argue all day long at how much fault they were for not securing their network enough, but given we don't know the details of the security breach, there's no real way to judge that. They weren't the first to be breached in a way like that and they certainly won't be the last either. In that sense, anything they are willing to offer at their expense IMO is considered at the very least, adequate in my book. If anything, it's a cookie because of the misshandled communication and the longer than expected downtime, which in turn will hopefully result in a more secure infrastructure to avoid something like this in the future.
How many of those 77 million accounts were active anyway? A third? And how many of that third are customers that purchase games over PSN? A quarter maybe again? And how many of those that do buy games over PSN own the complete list of those games?
Even if you have zero interest in the one game you don't own - this gesture enables you at least to give it a go for absolutely no money at all.
Oh ynd by the way, I'm fairly certain if they did offer credit on PSN, we'd just be arguing about the amount.
EDIT: And just to add: PSN doesn't deal with credits, they deal with money. How do you make it fair to the whole world without getting caught up in different pricing over different regions and the exchange-rate?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this needs underlying somewhat. In the early days of this breach, we were hearing about credit card numbers getting accessed, and plain text passwords. Reality was Sony were much like any other company, storing encrypted cards and hashes of password. They seemingly had the sort of security as anywhere else. It's not like this is the third time of getting hacked because they failed to learn lessons, nor is it that they left the doors wide opened and invited trouble. They've suffered plenty, and as a PS3 owner it's in my best interests, for the health of the platform, if Sony are allowed to get back up and back in the saddle. This compensatory gesture from them is good PR, it'd be nice if it was fairer by giving more people something of value, and it shouldn't cost them the earth and eat into resources that'd otherwise be spent improving the system and my experience, such as new games or online services. Shelling out $n hundred million on compensation would just result in cutbacks elsewhere which I doubt would be a net gain for users.
It seems after all of this discussion that they would be right to feel that way, too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personal data of 100 million accounts lost = Minor inconvenience?
Easily available, public data? Yup.
Though I largely agree, and people have been trading personal info for decades until the various data protection laws, the loss of the email is significant. It also wasn't 100 million proper users and their data, and though that figure is great for media headlines, it's not accurate as to the real loss. Still going to be a few tens of millions though, and the loss of old Credit Card data from SOE is a major loss to. We've no word yet on whether their password hashing was reversible or not. If reversible and the hackers gain access to everyone's password, that'd be a massive loss of data.
Were security questions and answers plain-text or hashed?
Whatever.
If you were trying to find data on one specific person it wouldn't be that hard to find most of the data Sony lost. But the work required to gather that type of data set on 10 million different individuals is not trivial and to build such as database is not easy.
But the point is how much of a PITB was it for the user? Next to none (bar changing a few passwords that you should have done/do anyway).
They probably don't need you to decide much of a PITB risk of creditcard fraud and identity theft is.
TBH, I've lost patience on PSN features.
Specifically, I can't easily get into games with friends for games like FIFA.
I recall in the PS2 days, the EA online setup gave you more info about where your friends were so it was easy to follow which lobby they were in, their progress in a game, etc.
Of course, they're going to keep PSN because it's a way to sell DLC and other content, not so much make it easier to play online.
Specifically, I can't easily get into games with friends for games like FIFA.
I recall in the PS2 days, the EA online setup gave you more info about where your friends were so it was easy to follow which lobby they were in, their progress in a game, etc.
Of course, they're going to keep PSN because it's a way to sell DLC and other content, not so much make it easier to play online.
But it's FREE! You're not allowed to criticize it.
Similar threads
