If I was looking at the PSN hack, and looking at something like the FIFA hack, about the last lesson I'd take is "be up-front and accurate".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DD Fraud: Sony is Embezzling 2 Games from Me (Everybody's Tennis/Motorstor:AE)
- Thread starter kadotsu
- Start date
If I was looking at the PSN hack, and looking at something like the FIFA hack, about the last lesson I'd take is "be up-front and accurate".
Wow, the ethics of some people are quite surprising. That anyone would openly defend Sony for stealing from their customers is just awful.
And you obviously cannot say that this doesn't concern a larger issue at some point; people letting companies rob and exploit their consumers with no repercussions.
It's just no ok on any level.
If, for some reason, they thought that some people could exploit the game to gain access to their servers, and had to remove it cause of that...... well, then they shouldn't sell the game to begin with, if there was any risk of that.
They force the consumers to buy a game through their servers/channels, and then they take the games back because that very option let hackers exploit their servers?
.................
Obviously there should be a big warning on their front page letting consumers know that they might take the game back from them at any moment without any refund cause hackers might be exploiting the game to get access to Sony.
And you obviously cannot say that this doesn't concern a larger issue at some point; people letting companies rob and exploit their consumers with no repercussions.
It's just no ok on any level.
If, for some reason, they thought that some people could exploit the game to gain access to their servers, and had to remove it cause of that...... well, then they shouldn't sell the game to begin with, if there was any risk of that.
They force the consumers to buy a game through their servers/channels, and then they take the games back because that very option let hackers exploit their servers?
.................
Obviously there should be a big warning on their front page letting consumers know that they might take the game back from them at any moment without any refund cause hackers might be exploiting the game to get access to Sony.
CadetMahoney
Member
This is NeoGaf.gif
Aren't NeoGaf posters supposed to be reasonable people, though? I haven't been posting here that long.
I don't think anyone's *defending* Sony, they're just stating that it's *lawful*. Two very different things.
(Regarding Alex Navarro: It looks like he's just talking in terms of making the *purchase*. I don't think anyone thinks Sony is wrong to pull the games from the *shop*. His writing doesn't look like he's aware of the *really* contentious issue)
Well that makes sense. No reason to expect a games journalists to be aware of the facts now, is there.
Short term answer: No
Long term answer: Yes with a but.
Not in the European Union it isn't.
The problem is that there is a false expectation that "games journalists" are consumer advocates. They're not. They're industry advocates. The industry pays their bills. You don't. Just keep that in mind when reading "game journalism" articles, reviews, etc. YOU are the product. You're the commodity. Do farmers care what their livestock think about their decisions?
jediyoshi
Member
Wait. "Wat". People are going to their site giving them hits for ads. People are paying for membership fees. People are participating in their referral programs. Under your logic, there wouldn't be negatively sensationalist headlines on the industry. What about people in here that are doing the same as "game journalists" but are also obviously consumers?
Whilst it's true that we are the product for gaming journalists its ridiculous to suggest it's not in their best interests to be consumer advocates. Unlike livestock, their customers can make the choice to leave and never come back. Games journalists might make their money due to the industry but they certainly aren't beholden to it. Without us they don't exist.
Giving them hits for ads. Ad revenue paid to the sites by the industry. Your metrics, your information, your habits, your preferences. All of that relatively innocuous data that is collected and sold to advertisers is valuable.
Membership fees = incidental at best. Whiskey Media wasn't able to sustain itself with them, for example.
When was the last negatively sensationalist headline you saw? Where? There is a iot that gets swept under the rug. Check out the Brian Fargo interview that Evilore posted.
This isn't "my logic", this is the reality of how business driven by advertising works. How do you think TV networks sustain themselves? Or Facebook? Or Google? They sell a product to advertisers, who pay them a crap ton of money. The product? You.
And yet the indifference or even contempt frequently displayed by game journalists toward the readers says otherwise. There are certainly some sites that care more than others, or at least individuals within those sites who care. Giant Bomb (excluding a couple of individuals) has been pretty fair. I'm also interested to see how Vox shapes up as there are some critical voices who have signed up with them. Hopefully they'll speak freely.
But no, game journalism ≠ consumer advocacy.
I thought the article was pretty funny.
The real issue is that Sony PR sucks royal balls. They should do a better job of informing the public about what the hell is going on instead of ignoring it. Give us a solution and an ETA and I think most people would be more understand.
You'd think they'd learn after the whole PSN thing. Japanese companies are big monolithic slabs nearly incapable of change.
The real issue is that Sony PR sucks royal balls. They should do a better job of informing the public about what the hell is going on instead of ignoring it. Give us a solution and an ETA and I think most people would be more understand.
You'd think they'd learn after the whole PSN thing. Japanese companies are big monolithic slabs nearly incapable of change.
DangerousDave
Member
Of course it's legal. Apple take out apps from the appstore all the time. For example, Whatsapp was took out during some days because a security leak. The fact that EULA is not a contract with legal consequences (so you won't be sued if you sell your game even if EULA say that you can't sell your game) doesn't mean that the law is the reverse of what is written on the EULA.
And any DD PC service will take out a game or app if it has a virus and they will repost it when it's fixed/cleaned.
No one would complain if those games were suspended because they had a security leak that allow to steal your PSN ID when played. But, because the issue is that can allow to hack the console, people complains.
jediyoshi
Member
You're describing two different unique processes here, advertising isn't inherently tied to the act of gathering the information itself. Your metrics, your information, your habits, your preferences are only important in terms of targeting more ads back, it's a circular line of thinking.
Whiskey Media is a bad example as it had terribly more aggressive ads and isn't indicative of larger games sites at all.
I'm not sure about that, unless there's citations otherwise. I believe you're talking in terms of EULAs being not enforcable in the EU, which while it might be *true*, that only really applies to physical product. DD *has* to be defined as a service by its very nature (they are providing a download service); the software may still be regarded as a product, but the means of transfer is a service.
That's why I earlier indicated that I'd like legislation to lock down exactly what a DD purchase *legally* is, which would both convey benefits on the provider and guarantees for the purchaser.
I fully believe that DD is the future, but it needs work, work at a legislative level.
I don't think people particularly object to the *removal* as much as they do the fact that it's happened silently. If there's a guarantee that either the game will be reinstated in a fixed form or that they will be able to claim a refund, I doubt anyone would have anything like as big an issue.
The only thin I know for sure is that EULA holds no legal right here.
Man your whole post makes no sense, first your saying that people are openly defending Sony for this but that's not what I am seeing. What I see is people understanding why Sony did it and We are trying to get answers regarding the game which is why I called Sony.
Second It's a glitch causing it, I don't think there is anyway they would have known that the game would have a glitch that causes an exploit to hack the Vita to be found.
I would hope they are fixing the glitch and rereleasing the game but I am not going to freak out at Sony until I get an answer back from them regarding this.
They're saying that EULA is not legally binding in the EU (and most other places), so any attempt by a poster to point to the EULA and go, 'tough shit' when someone complains about matters such as this is meaningless outside of the corporate wonderland that is the USA.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Yes and no. You'd be surprised how many GAFfers firmly believe that these game devs are like their best friends. The white knighting of disgusting business practices is commonplace.
I don't think the EULA is really relevant here?
It's just about keeping the digital download on the server for eternity/life of the company. Which I don't think is legally required.
EDIT: Note that I'm not defending Sony on this. I'm just not sure there is really anything you can do legally to say Sony did something wrong to you.
It's just about keeping the digital download on the server for eternity/life of the company. Which I don't think is legally required.
EDIT: Note that I'm not defending Sony on this. I'm just not sure there is really anything you can do legally to say Sony did something wrong to you.
It depends exactly what your purchase *really* - legally - gets you. And all my clamouring that this needs something to lock it down officially boils down to that.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Yeah, it's funny how no one gets mad at these guys. If they weren't mucking around trying to find vulnerabilities to exploit you'd still have your Motorstorm and Tennis.
It's not going to end here either, because you can bet they're trying other games, and those to will be removed. I wouldn't be suprised if PSP BC is completely removed from future versions of Vita.
But it's not lawful everywhere, especially not in Germany where the OP resides. A lot of stuff in the digital world happens in a legal gray area since it's essentially legally undefined, but that doesn't make it lawful at all. I just hope as many people as possible are complaining about this (and comparable cases) to their local consumer protection groups.
Blue Submarine No. 6
Member
Update: Sony have given me a refund for Motorstorm Arctic Edge to my PSN wallet.
I received an email from Sony tonight stating they had refunded what I had paid for Motorstorm AE. I bought this game more than two years ago for $40, so I'm completely satisfied with their response to this matter. As long as they are willing to refund what I paid for a game, I can accept that they may have to remove one from the service from time to time.
I plan on using the money to buy a cool Vita game I don't have yet... I'll find me a used UMD copy of Arctic Edge for my PSP collection tomorrow
I received an email from Sony tonight stating they had refunded what I had paid for Motorstorm AE. I bought this game more than two years ago for $40, so I'm completely satisfied with their response to this matter. As long as they are willing to refund what I paid for a game, I can accept that they may have to remove one from the service from time to time.
I plan on using the money to buy a cool Vita game I don't have yet... I'll find me a used UMD copy of Arctic Edge for my PSP collection tomorrow
(it'll probably cost me $10)
JakkuFurosu
Member
glad to hear that
Ken Masters
Banned
my favorite gif
Silence!
So Kevin Butler, you finally come out of hiding!
Only a complete shill who has been bought and paid for by the Sony Electronics Empire would ever lie so blatantly on the internet!
I for one am on to you.
Blue Submarine No. 6
Member
I have been outted. It's true, I am the VP of Getting My Money Back.
As for being bought and paid for, I will admit to generally viewing favorably large multi-nationals that see fit to give me money.
Cunning, most cunning
Metalmurphy
Member
Where did you get the multiple times from? And it makes no sense to refund everyone if theyre planning to put it back on the store.
1. The original posts by Blue Submarine implied (see bold text below) through the email transcripts that there had been a bit of back and forth over the issue - hence "multiple times".
ie
Blue Submarine No. 6 said:
2. Why would they have agreed to refund him if they had no intention to put the game back on the store? The fact they have issued him a refund in this case to me implies that there is not going to be a re-listing of the games in question.
So that leaves the natural questions:
1. Are Sony going to do a blanket refund to all the people who paid for the now (presumably permanently) delisted games? or;
2. Are they going to refund on a case-by-case basis to those who make formal complaints up the chain? (Most likely scenario given Sony's MO in recent years)
So I'm currently taking a consumer protection law course in school (IANAL, just an awareness course) and I asked my teacher about this ordeal.
First, Sony is well within their rights to pull something from PSN, BUT if they do so within an unreasonable timeframe, like too close from launch of the product, they'll get in trouble. If they do not have the product downloadable again within a "reasonable timeframe", the buyer has the right to ask for their money back or an equal amount in PSN credits.
This is in Finland, but I'd expect that the law would be somewhat similar in other EU states.
First, Sony is well within their rights to pull something from PSN, BUT if they do so within an unreasonable timeframe, like too close from launch of the product, they'll get in trouble. If they do not have the product downloadable again within a "reasonable timeframe", the buyer has the right to ask for their money back or an equal amount in PSN credits.
This is in Finland, but I'd expect that the law would be somewhat similar in other EU states.
It IS possible they have no idea, and are just giving it as a gesture of good will. I think if a firmware update or two comes along with no other sign then its relisting won't happen.
I really don't see these games ever coming back on the store. It requires getting the original teams who programmed these games years ago to get back together and patch it and I'm sure they're all on time intensive current projects and that is priority -20 to them.
Plus no one is going to notice they aren't on the store. It's not like many people buy old PSP games on PSN. The only people affected are the ones who already bought them and deleted them and go to find them on the download list and they're gone. If Sony gives them refunds it's really the easiest solution for everyone.
I think there's the other angle that it gets fixed on the firmware side, that it sees these exploits and actively stops them from working (or it's a universal PSP emulator that can be fixed, whichever). Think that's how the Twilight Hack got stopped, and when re-listed the games can just not work without the correct firmware.
Haunted
Member
What's even worse is the circle jerk in the comments section.
Not only does Alex Navarro completely ignore the fact that Sony removed the game from the people who already bought it, he also insults the GB community in the comments section. Classic stuff.
PetriP-TNT
Member
Blue Submarine No. 6
Member
I think Sony should go one further, and contact anyone who bought the game in the past via their PSN account and let them know that they have to remove the game, why they have decided to do this, whether or not they expect the game back up on PSN and when, and how the purchaser can contact Sony for a refund/compensation (if warranted).
If they had done that when they pulled Motorstorm AE from PSN and said "we'll have the game back in 10 weeks" or something like that, I would not have asked for the refund. It's the surreptitious nature of the removal that had me demanding a refund immediately - they basically took away something I purchased right of access to without informing me at all, and that kind of pissed me off... (not very, but a little faux righteous indignation can go a long way toward a refund request)... The only reason I can see for not informing everyone what's going on is fear of a backlash against PSN's DD service or not wanting to face a flood of demands for refunds...
This actually should be part of the system. That it isn't is already telling much about with how much forward-thinking everything was planned (concerns most digital systems, not only PSN).
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
The purchaser shouldn't even have to contact Sony. The moment they delist the game, they should be crediting the buyer with the purchase price.
They should even offer something more. Let's say you're still in the middle of playing something and want to get to the end... and all your efforts are gone. Or you're OCD about completing all your games 100% and now your trophy list is stuck with one "19%" because you only just got started with this one.
Immediate refund + apology + small PSN credit or other freebie = satisfaction.