Is PSN under attack? - PSN now back up 15/05

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 21:54

Energize said:
The ps3 does come with little as standard, the 360 controller costs £23 which is a lot less than the ps3 controller, regardless of the price semantics.

huh???

ps3 always had bigger internal hard drives - check
ps3 always had built in wireless - check
ps3 built in blu ray (high def media) - check

a hdmi cable costs £2

i got my spare official dual shock controllers from the sony store for £25 each brand new - it was on hot uk deals website, people went crazy and they sold out within hours, but they sent emails to everyone saying they would get one because of demand they would need to wait a while.

am i missing anything here?

my 360 came with no hd dvd drive - i had to buy that seperate, i also had to buy my wireless adapter seperate (like £45+ they were at launch), also only like 6gb hard drive.

come at me bro

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 21:55

andy_mk3 said:
Sony can take as long as they like for all I care. If people can't live without online games for a few days then they must have issues!

I'd imagine Sony are taking their time in doing this to do a proper job, rather than patch it then have to take it down again when it gets attacked again.

People can moan and groan all they like, it's not going to change a thing, how about get out and enjoy some fresh air?

its not the people moaning thats the problem, its all the people saying go out and get some fresh air, its been repeated about 50 times in this thread.

TheVoice · 24 Apr 2011 at 21:59

Energize said:
The ps3 does come with little as standard, the 360 controller costs £23 which is a lot less than the ps3 controller, regardless of the price semantics.

Not really; headset aside, the 360 comes with nothing more than the PS3 does.

As for the controller pricing, the 360 controller doesn't come with a rechargeable battery pack, which is another £10. That pushes it past the price of the Dual Shock 3.

Energize · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:01

Psycho Sonny said:
huh???

ps3 always had bigger internal hard drives - check
ps3 always had built in wireless - check
ps3 built in blu ray (high def media) - check

a hdmi cable costs £2

i got my spare official dual shock controllers from the sony store for £25 each brand new - it was on hot uk deals website, people went crazy and they sold out within hours, but they sent emails to everyone saying they would get one because of demand they would need to wait a while.

am i missing anything here?

my 360 came with no hd dvd drive - i had to buy that seperate, i also had to buy my wireless adapter seperate (like £45+ they were at launch), also only like 6gb hard drive.

come at me bro

The launch 360 was also much cheaper and released years earlier... I could easily go on about Sony removing bc etc. But I like to compare like for like, current ps3 vs current 360 or whatever else. The HD-DVD was never essential or of any interest to many gamers anyway. Whereas hdmi is essential for all intents and purposes. A one off deal is not here nor there either. People seem to be missing the point, I am saying that PS3 users pay for the service in the end and so we are right to expect a decent online service.

As for the controller pricing, the 360 controller doesn't come with a rechargeable battery pack, which is another £10. That pushes it past the price of the Dual Shock 3.

AA batteries are much better.

ic1male · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:01

Psycho Sonny said:
its not the people moaning thats the problem, its all the people saying go out and get some fresh air, its been repeated about 50 times in this thread.

Here, here! I don't want to go and get flippin' fresh air. I want to play multiplayer!

andy_mk3 · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:01

Psycho Sonny said:
its not the people moaning thats the problem, its all the people saying go out and get some fresh air, its been repeated about 50 times in this thread.

Well I apologise for not reading through all 263 posts before posting.

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:05

Energize said:
The launch 360 was also much cheaper and released years earlier... I could easily go on about Sony removing bc etc. But I like to compare like for like, current ps3 vs current 360 or whatever else. The HD-DVD was never essential or of any interest to many gamers anyway. Whereas hdmi is essential for all intents and purposes. A one off deal is not here nor there either. People seem to be missing the point, I am saying that PS3 users pay for the service in the end and so we are right to expect a decent online service.

AA batteries are much better.

im comparing launch console vs launch console - these are the consoles i bought, and i reckon i got a lot more with my ps3.

built in wireless
blu ray
10 x bigger hard drive
also got a smart hub with sd, memory stick, etc, 4 front usb ports

i am comparing like for like - launch consoles as i didnt not buy my ps3 and my 360 last week i bought them years ago, then ms realised their mistakes and then started giving bigger hard drives and built in wireless.

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:09

just trying to think what ps3 doesnt come with that it needs.

hdmi - £2

and thats it

you dont NEED to buy a controller it comes with 1. is that what people are moaning about a £2 hdmi lead? seriously?

PSN is free - there are no extra costs paying for the service, well ive never got my credit card out to pay for them anyway.

ps3ud0 · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:12

I really dont see the relevance of the tangent we appear to be going down - just seem to be heading to fanboi-ville and eventual thread lock...

ps3ud0 :cool:

Energize · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:13

Psycho Sonny said:
i am comparing like for like - launch consoles as i didnt not buy my ps3 and my 360 last week i bought them years ago, then ms realised their mistakes and then started giving bigger hard drives and built in wireless.

That's all well and good but doesn't have any relevance to today.

Psycho Sonny said:
you dont NEED to buy a controller it comes with 1. is that what people are moaning about a £2 hdmi lead? seriously?

No one is moaning about anything I have just stated the the psn is paid for by increased costs of their products eg accessories. Though I will always think that not including the hdmi cable was lame because of precisely how cheap it is.

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:17

Energize said:
That's all well and good but doesn't have any relevance to today.

No one is moaning about anything I have just stated the the psn is paid for by increased costs of their products eg accessories.

you honestly think that psn is paid for by the profit margin on accessories? accessories which most people only ever have to buy once.

say i bought 1 controller that extra £5 is going to pay for my psn for life

LMAO - seriously???

what if i chose not to buy official accessories what then? would they turn my psn off?

see whatever it is you take, can you pass it around so we can all get high?

Energize · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:23

Psycho Sony, sorry "Sonny", I don't know what you are talking about, it is common knowledge that to maintain a level of profit prices must go up if expenditure increases, I don't understand why you are going mental about that statement. :confused:

All I am saying is that we should expect a decent service from PSN subscription or not.

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:27

Energize said:
Psycho Sony, sorry "Sonny", I don't know what you are talking about, it is common knowledge that to maintain a level of profit prices must go up if expenditure increases, I don't understand why you are going mental about that statement.

im pretty sure if i was running sony, i would be paying for psn using money from games sold, not accessories. or licensing the online part of it to developers for a cut, etc. there is no way any of the money from accessories goes towards paying for psn.

its quite possibly the worst business model i have ever heard of, especially since nobody needs to buy any official sony accessories. but you do need to buy official sony ps3 games.

Phatjayunoi · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:30

My god the arguments here and some of the Anti-Sony mentality is really laughable and stupid.

TheVoice said:
As for the controller pricing, the 360 controller doesn't come with a rechargeable battery pack, which is another £10. That pushes it past the price of the Dual Shock 3.

Yeah and don't forget that the DualShock 3's have the also have the Sixaxis technology included, so it's not that surprising the PS3 controllers cost more.

If people can't see the reason for the pricing due to the features and technology between the controllers, then they seriously are stupid.

Twentyone · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:31

Nevermind.

Energize · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:36

Psycho Sonny said:
im pretty sure if i was running sony, i would be paying for psn using money from games sold, not accessories. or licensing the online part of it to developers for a cut, etc. there is no way any of the money from accessories goes towards paying for psn.

I mentioned licensing costs and the ps1 downloads on the previous page, I never suggested that accessories solely fund the PSN. I imagine that the money comes from the general revenue pool and the cost distributed generally across their range of ps3 related merchandise.

Psycho Sonny · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:41

Energize said:
I mentioned licensing costs and the ps1 downloads on the previous page, I never suggested that accessories solely fund the PSN. I imagine that the money comes from the general revenue pool and the cost distributed generally across their range of ps3 related merchandise.

it wont be from a pool, that way they wouldnt know what parts of their company make them a profit and which are run for a loss, thats the reason why sony has all these different divisions.

a european division an american division and an asian division.

psn is paid for by the games sold, whether that be sold in a shop or online, thats the most logical way to do it.

since ps3 games cost the exact same as xbox 360 games, im assuming they are just abosorbing the cost themselves, therefore it is free. it is not a paid for service.

anyway - im batting my head against a brick wall here, its free and sony absorb the costs, much like pc games, counter strike source is also free online on pc and absorbed by valve.

Judgeneo · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:46

I came in here to see if there was any new news on PSN, and walked into a console fanboy argument. Typical......

Loads up steam

msmalls74 · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:54

Yeah so much bull in here i can grow my roses in lol.
I kinda hope those who are complaining about the service being taken down due to a security breach dont have their details stolen, just look what happened to several online retailers when their CC info was hacked, far better to wait a few days or a week and have it secure than get my CC info stolen. As for blaming Sonys poor security, it happens to many far more secure places than Sony, look at when the Pentagon was hacked by the Chinese a few years back.

Energize · 24 Apr 2011 at 22:55

Psycho Sonny said:
it wont be from a pool, that way they wouldnt know what parts of their company make them a profit and which are run for a loss, thats the reason why sony has all these different divisions.

a european division an american division and an asian division.

I mean the revenue that the PS3 division brings in.

psn is paid for by the games sold, whether that be sold in a shop or online, thats the most logical way to do it.

since ps3 games cost the exact same as xbox 360 games, im assuming they are just abosorbing the cost themselves, therefore it is free. it is not a paid for service.

Like I said though game sales are only one source of revenue, I doubt Sony or any other company would take a hit on profits. It also depends on your definition of free I suppose. I've always considered myself as paying for the service indirectly, like the NHS. Though it is certainly preferable to a sub service live as it is one less thing off your mind, and you don't have to suffer trying to cancel your subscription.

msmalls74 said:
As for blaming Sonys poor security, it happens to many far more secure places than Sony, look at when the Pentagon was hacked by the Chinese a few years back.

I think the whole encryption fiasco led to people assuming Sony is to blame in this scenario.