Sony Preparing Hack-Proof PS3 SKU *Rumour*

[STFU1]

Less talk Sony, more hack proof firmware.

 

[KingVamp]

Any "hack proof" technology they're developing will be used in the PS4 and NGP. Really, after all this hoo-ha, I'm expecting the PS4 to be announced by the Tokyo Game Show.

I really just hope Sony at least consider making future home consoles wholly focused on streamed content. It'd be cheaper for a lot of reasons, least of all that the console itself wouldn't even need much inside it, and Sony wouldn't have to worry about hackers at all. Sell all games for a tenner for an hour's worth of single player and multiplayer content and allow users to buy what they want in the form of microtransactions (so those who only want to play single player or multiplayer only really need to purchase that half of the game), replacing preorder bonuses with ownership bonuses that promote people purchasing the whole package.

Simple, really.

Um... no I wouldn't but it. I like to have and touch what I bought and keep it from easily being lost.
Be like the psp go and how did that turn out?
Plus they just might go for streamed content unless there it enough hardware to play homebrew. :/
Then they might go the route of having to pay to go/use online.

 

[notmeanymore]

Any "hack proof" technology they're developing will be used in the PS4 and NGP. Really, after all this hoo-ha, I'm expecting the PS4 to be announced by the Tokyo Game Show.

I really just hope Sony at least consider making future home consoles wholly focused on streamed content. It'd be cheaper for a lot of reasons, least of all that the console itself wouldn't even need much inside it, and Sony wouldn't have to worry about hackers at all. Sell all games for a tenner for an hour's worth of single player and multiplayer content and allow users to buy what they want in the form of microtransactions (so those who only want to play single player or multiplayer only really need to purchase that half of the game), replacing preorder bonuses with ownership bonuses that promote people purchasing the whole package.

Simple, really.

Um... no I wouldn't but it. I like to have and touch what I bought and keep it from easily being lost.
Be like the psp go and how did that turn out?
Plus they just might go for streamed content unless there it enough hardware to play homebrew. :/
Then they might go the route of having to pay to go/use online.

If we had to pay for PSN, less people would own both a 360 and a PS3, but in the long run, it would be better for security:
1. Removes kids who can hack and get banned without fear wasting money.
2. Gives Sony more money for more security folks to keep up with the latest hacks and patch/ban them.

 

[STFU1]

All Sony really needs to do is start banning people online more. It worked for Microsoft.

 

[KingVamp]

If we had to pay for PSN, less people would own both a 360 and a PS3, but in the long run, it would be better for security:
1. Removes kids who can hack and get banned without fear wasting money.
2. Gives Sony more money for more security folks to keep up with the latest hacks and patch/ban them.

How does less people would own both a 360 and a PS3 = more money?

As in if only 2 out 10 people pay PSN or own PS3 they aren't getting that much money for it.

So it right to block people who can not pay because of security?

Does it even take money to ban people?

 

[SPH73]

Too little, too late. They'll only splinter the market. Unless they're going to ban every hackable PS3 Sony is SOL and this rumor is complete BS.

 

[Wintrale]

If this is true, saying "hack-proof" is just going to get a ton of people to hack it. And then when they do, Sony is going to sue. NOTHING is hack proof. And the sooner the world knows that, the better.

So you'd rather they simply stopped trying to make their devices as hack-proof as possible?

 

[ShadowSoldier]

If this is true, saying "hack-proof" is just going to get a ton of people to hack it. And then when they do, Sony is going to sue. NOTHING is hack proof. And the sooner the world knows that, the better.

So you'd rather they simply stopped trying to make their devices as hack-proof as possible?

I said no such thing. I'm all for companies trying to step up their security. Nothing is hack proof though, so don't claim your product is. If you don't do that, then you won't get a ton of hackers coming at you just to prove you wrong. Make it as good as you can, just don't egg on hackers saying "hey, you can't get through these doors", otherwise the hackers will just go through the walls.

 

[notmeanymore]

If we had to pay for PSN, less people would own both a 360 and a PS3, but in the long run, it would be better for security:
1. Removes kids who can hack and get banned without fear wasting money.
2. Gives Sony more money for more security folks to keep up with the latest hacks and patch/ban them.

How does less people would own both a 360 and a PS3 = more money?

As in if only 2 out 10 people pay PSN or own PS3 they aren't getting that much money for it.

So it right to block people who can not pay because of security?

Does it even take money to ban people?

Less people who own both meaning, since they have to pay for online on both, the middle-class (such as myself) is only going to buy one of the 2 consoles.

It is more money since the only free online available would be the Wii, so people are just gonna pick either the Xbox or the PS3. Regardless of who they choose, both companies make more money from those people.

No way would the numbers be so low as 2 in 10. I have 6 friends (in my city) who have an Xbox, 5 of which have live, and considering this is Louisiana, a very uncultured region of the United States, saying that only 85% of all Xbox owners have Live is being generous in your favor.

And while the way you, again, twisted it to be ("it doesn't cost money to ban") is true, you're ignoring what I said. More money for Sony = more money for them to pay for more employees to keep security in ship-shape, and have programmers not make simple, yet important mistakes (see: a non-random random number).

 

[KingVamp]

If we had to pay for PSN, less people would own both a 360 and a PS3, but in the long run, it would be better for security:
1. Removes kids who can hack and get banned without fear wasting money.
2. Gives Sony more money for more security folks to keep up with the latest hacks and patch/ban them.

How does less people would own both a 360 and a PS3 = more money?

As in if only 2 out 10 people pay PSN or own PS3 they aren't getting that much money for it.

So it right to block people who can not pay because of security?

Does it even take money to ban people?

Less people who own both meaning, since they have to pay for online on both, the middle-class (such as myself) is only going to buy one of the 2 consoles.
Assuming they buy those 2 out of 3 consoles.
It is more money since the only free online available would be the Wii, so people are just gonna pick either the Xbox or the PS3. Regardless of who they choose, both companies make more money from those people.
Assuming they won't just buy a wii or no console at all.
No way would the numbers be so low as 2 in 10. This was just scenario... I have 6 friends (in my city) who have an Xbox, 5 of which have live, and considering this is Louisiana, a very uncultured region of the United States, saying that only 85% of all Xbox owners have Live is being generous in your favor.
But this is all from opinion you do not know how much people buy xbox or ps3
And while the way you, again, twisted it to be ("it doesn't cost money to ban") is true I was asking a question, not stating it as fact. , you're ignoring what I said. More money for Sony = more money for them to pay for more employees to keep security in ship-shape, and have programmers not make simple, yet important mistakes (see: a non-random random number).

Where is Sony going to get this money if people do not buy ps3 or just won't used online services.

 

[shakirmoledina]

they said sony lose money per each console they sell... if they decrease it even more, are they even earning then?
its a necessary thing if geohot does lose completely but i dont think its sooo much of an issue

 

[BlueStar]

Surely if your current batch of consoles has a fault you're desperate to see removed from the market enough to create a new version of your product, you withdraw the remaining stock from the shelves, rather than try and sell as many of the 'defective' units as quickly and cheaply as possible?

 

[DarkWay]

There is no such thing as hack proof.

 

[Joe88]

they said sony lose money per each console they sell... if they decrease it even more, are they even earning then?
its a necessary thing if geohot does lose completely but i dont think its sooo much of an issue

they have been making profit on each system since last june

 

[_Chaz_]

Wasn't the PS3 itself supposedly "Hack-Proof"?

 

[Aijelsop]

Wasn't the PS3 itself supposedly "Hack-Proof"?

The next console could be absolutely 1000000% hackerable-proof but someone will STILL figure out a way to do something to it.

 

[_Chaz_]

Wasn't the PS3 itself supposedly "Hack-Proof"?

The next console could be absolutely 1000000% hackerable-proof but someone will STILL figure out a way to do something to it.

 

[BORTZ]

Wasn't the PS3 itself supposedly "Hack-Proof"?

The next console could be absolutely 1000000% hackerable-proof but someone will STILL figure out a way to do something to it.

So that means it isnt 1000000% hackproof...

 

[TheDarkSeed]

It has to be a rumor. I think they're gonna jump ship in 2 years.

 

[notmeanymore]

If we had to pay for PSN, less people would own both a 360 and a PS3, but in the long run, it would be better for security:
1. Removes kids who can hack and get banned without fear wasting money.
2. Gives Sony more money for more security folks to keep up with the latest hacks and patch/ban them.

How does less people would own both a 360 and a PS3 = more money?

As in if only 2 out 10 people pay PSN or own PS3 they aren't getting that much money for it.

So it right to block people who can not pay because of security?

Does it even take money to ban people?

Less people who own both meaning, since they have to pay for online on both, the middle-class (such as myself) is only going to buy one of the 2 consoles.
Assuming they buy those 2 out of 3 consoles.
It is more money since the only free online available would be the Wii, so people are just gonna pick either the Xbox or the PS3. Regardless of who they choose, both companies make more money from those people.
Assuming they won't just buy a wii or no console at all.
No way would the numbers be so low as 2 in 10. This was just scenario... I have 6 friends (in my city) who have an Xbox, 5 of which have live, and considering this is Louisiana, a very uncultured region of the United States, saying that only 85% of all Xbox owners have Live is being generous in your favor.
But this is all from opinion you do not know how much people buy xbox or ps3
And while the way you, again, twisted it to be ("it doesn't cost money to ban") is true I was asking a question, not stating it as fact. , you're ignoring what I said. More money for Sony = more money for them to pay for more employees to keep security in ship-shape, and have programmers not make simple, yet important mistakes (see: a non-random random number).

Where is Sony going to get this money if people do not buy ps3 or just won't used online services.

Considering Microsoft is making good money on the Xbox and the Live system, you're trying to deviate from the point. You keep trying to say "It won't work." and I keep telling you "It worked for Microsoft" and you're just not getting it. Like holy shit. More people own an Xbox 360 than own a PS3, and according to Microsoft, 50% of those people pay for live. Taking the article into account, you can say that Microsoft makes $750,000,000 a year for Live. $750,000,000 that could be put toward better quality servers and security.